PEPYS   ON   THE   RESTORATION   STAGE 


PUBLISHED  UNDER  THE 

AUSPICES   OF   THE   ELIZABETHAN   CLUB 
OF   YALE   UNIVERSITY 


^'^CVR.K.T.VC.A^ 


PEPYS  ON  THE  RESTORATION 
STAGE 


BY 
HELEN    McAFEE 


NEW  HAVEN:  YALE  UNIVERSITY  PRESS 

LONDON:   HUMPHREY  MILFORD 

OXFORD  UNIVERSITY  PRESS 

MDCCCCXVI 


1 


COPYRIGHT,  1916 
BY  YALE  UNIVERSITY  PRESS 


First  published  October,  1916 


FOREWORD 

One  would  scarcely  have  the  temerity  to  add  to 
the  already  copious  literature  inspired  by  the  immor- 
tal Diary  of  Samuel  Pepys  were  it  not  that  a  sepa- 
rate presentation  of  the  highly  valuable  and  inter- 
esting passages  relating  to  the  Restoration  stage 
would  seem  to  serve  a  useful  purpose.  These  pas- 
sages, it  is  true,  have  been  widely  cited  by  literary 
historians  from  Genest  down,  and  many  of  them 
have  been  commented  upon  by  the  several  editors 
and  critics  of  the  Diary.  Different  writers  have, 
however,  used  different,  and  in  many  cases  incom- 
plete editions — Genest,  for  example,  basing  his  con- 
clusions on  that  of  Lord  Braybrooke,  first  published 
in  1825.  Moreover,  since  the  appearance  of  the  last 
and  fullest  edition  by  Henry  B.  Wheatley,  1893- 
1899,  works  elucidating  many  of  Pepys's  statements 
have  been  brought  out.  Now,  therefore,  that  we  have 
a  version  of  the  Diary  in  which  we  may  be  sure  no 
detail  of  importance  has  been  omitted,  the  time  would 
seem  to  be  ripe  for  a  complete  selection  of  all  pas- 
sages relating  to  the  theatre  and  the  drama  in  the 
decade  Pepys  covers — one  of  the  most  decisive  in  the 
history  of  the  English  stage — and  for  a  re-annotation 
of  this  material  in  the  light  of  recent  researches  as 
well  as  seventeenth-century  sources.  Since  the  latter 
are  more  or  less  difficult  of  access,  the  plan  has  been 

3435C3 


viii  FOREWORD 

to  include  in  the  notes  the  accounts  of  such  writers 
as  Downes,  Langbaine,  and  John  Evelyn,  where  they 
parallel  Pepys.  With  these  ends  in  view,  and  in  the 
interest  of  both  the  student  reader  and  the  lover  of 
the  stage,  this  volume  is  presented. 

Originally  undertaken  in  partial  fulfillment  of  the 
requirements  for  the  degree  of  Master  of  Arts  at 
Smith  College,  the  work  has  been  somewhat  en- 
larged in  size  and  in  scope  for  purposes  of  publica- 
tion. The  author  desires  to  acknowledge  here  indebt- 
edness to  Professor  George  Henry  Nettleton  of 
Yale  University  and  others  who  have  by  their  criti- 
cism and  interest  generously  assisted  in  its  prepara- 
tion. It  is  also  a  pleasure  to  thank  Mr.  Robert  Gould 
Shaw  for  his  courtesy  in  permitting  the  reproduc- 
tion of  a  quaint  print  of  a  Restoration  actor  from  the 
invaluable  Theatre  Collection  in  the  Harvard  Uni- 
versity Library. 

HELEN  MCAFEE. 


TABLE   OF   CONTENTS 


PAGE 


FOREWORD vii 

INTRODUCTION 

I.     The   Critics   and   Pepys's   Material   on   the 

Stage 5 

II.     Pepys  as  a  Dramatic  Historian           .           .  17 

III.     Pepys  and  the  Restoration  Theatre  .           .  37 

REFERENCES  IN  PEPYS'S  DIARY  TO  THE 
RESTORATION  STAGE 

PART  ONE 

Chapter  I.  Shakespeare's  Plays  N    .           .  .65 

Chapter  II.  Other  Pre-Restoration  PlaysN .  .  81 

Chapter  III.  Plays  of  Uncertain  Date          .  .  133 

Chapter  IV.  Contemporary  Restoration  Plays  \ .  137^ 

Chapter  V.  Foreign  Plays  and  Translations  .  197 

Chapter  VI.  Drolls  and  Puppet-Plays          .  .  205 

PART  Two 

Chapter    VII.     The  Actors  .  .  .  .211 

Chapter  VIII.     The  Actresses         ....      237 
Chapter      IX.     The  Playwrights   .  .  .  .263 

Chapter       X.     The  Audiences        .  .  .  .277 

PART  THREE 

Chapter     XI.     The  Theatres         .  .  .          .289 

Chapter   XII.     Stage  Productions  .  .  .315 

BIBLIOGRAPHY        ....  .327 

INDEX  .     339 


LIST  OF  ILLUSTRATIONS 

Samuel  Pepys Frontispiece 

Thomas  Betterton          ....  Opposite  p.    45 

Scene  from  The  Island  Princess        .          .  Opposite  p.    89 

Joe  Haines  Speaking  a  Prologue     .           .  Opposite  p.  217 

Nell  Gwyn             .....  Opposite  p.  243 

Stage  of  the  So-called  Red  Bull  Theatre    .  Opposite  p.  300 


INTRODUCTION 


THE  CRITICS  AND  PEPYS'S   MATERIAL 
ON  THE  STAGE 


THE  CRITICS  AND  PEPYS'S  MATERIAL 
ON  THE  STAGE 

In  his  Preface  to  the  first  edition  of  the  Memoirs 
of  Samuel  Pepys,  Esq.  (1825),  Lord  Braybrooke 
endeavored  to  forestall  objections  to  the  number  of 
theatrical  "notices"  which  the  work  contained.  For 
including  so  many  of  them,  he  offered  the  twofold 
excuse  that  little  was  previously  known  "from  authen- 
tic sources  of  the  History  of  the  Stage  about  the 
period  of  the  Restoration,"  and  that  many  of  the  inci- 
dents recorded  by  Pepys  were  "not  to  be  met  with 
elsewhere."  He  therefore  thought  himself  justified, 
he  says,  "in  retaining  them,  at  the  risk  of  fatiguing 
those  readers  who  have  no  taste  for  the  concerns  of 
the  Drama."  In  view  of  its  subsequent  reception, 
Lord  Braybrooke's  solicitude  for  the  theatrical  intel- 
ligence in  the  Diary  was  unnecessary.  Few  readers 
have  appeared  to  find  Pepys's  accounts  of  his  visits 
to  the  playhouse  fatiguing.  And  from  the  very  be- 
ginning, critics  delighted  to  honor  the  information 
which  the  Diarist  gives  us  about  the  Restoration 
stage.  Unlike  so  many  famous  works,  Pepys's  jour- 
nal, after  being  hidden  away  for  a  century  and  a  half, 
acceded  immediately  on  its  appearance  to  a  place  in 
the  minds  and  affections  of  the  reading  public.  And 


6    PEPYS  ON  THE  RESTORATION  STAGE 

the  entries  relating  to  the  stage  were  welcomed  with 
especial  warmth. 

Ample  evidence  of  this  may  be  found  in  the  reviews 
of  the  Braybrooke  edition  of  the  Memoirs,  which 
continued  to  appear  in  the  literary  magazines1  all 
through  the  latter  part  of  1825  and  the  early  part 
of  1826.  With  few  exceptions,  contemporary  re- 
viewers were  quick  to  acknowledge  both  the  value 
and  the  interest  of  the  references  to  the  stage. 
Nearly  a  century  has  elapsed  since  these  critics  wrote; 
but  in  the  main  their  verdicts  have  stood  the  test  of 
time.  In  the  long  line  of  commentators  who  have 
succeeded  them,  are  many  distinguished  names — Sir 
Walter  Scott,  Francis  Jeffrey,  Robert  Louis  Steven- 
son, William  Archer,  R.  W.  Lowe,  Henry  B.  Wheat- 
ley,  and  Sir  Sidney  Lee,2  to  mention  only  a  few. 
Their  impressions,  as  well  as  the  criticisms  of  cer- 
tain anonymous  writers,  are  well  worth  reviewing  not 
only  for  their  intrinsic  interest  but  also  for  the  light 
they  throw  on  the  attitude  taken  from  time  to  time 
towards  Pepys's  material  on  the  stage.  Hence,  by 
way  of  introduction  to  the  present  work,  a  brief 
account  of  the  more  significant  of  these  will  be 
presented. 

The  unfavorable  comments,  because  of  their  ex- 
treme rarity,  should  perhaps  be  considered  first. 
Such  comments,  of  sufficient  bulk  and  import  to  war- 
rant notice,  appeared  in  reviews  of  the  Memoirs  in 

1 A  list  of  British  periodicals  in  which  the  more  important 
reviews  discussing  this  aspect  of  the  Memoirs  appeared,  will  be 
found  on  pp.  327-328  of  the  Bibliography. 

2  See  under  these  names  in  the  Bibliography  for  titles. 


THE  CRITICS  AND  PEPYS'S  MATERIAL         7 

three  periodicals  of  the  year  1825.  All  were  ob- 
viously written  by  men  who  had  "no  taste  for  the 
concerns  of  the  Drama"  in  the  concrete  form  in  which 
Pepys  recorded  them.  Of  these  three  criticisms  the 
most  impatient  is  that  of  an  anonymous  contributor 
to  the  July  issue  of  The  Eclectic  Review  published 
when  the  Diary  had  not  yet  been  out  a  month.  He 
dismisses  thus  curtly  Pepys's  "insipid  and  weari- 
some notices  relating  to  the  theatrical  performances" 
in  order  to  devote  the  remaining  thirteen  pages  of 
his  essay  to  other  sides  of  the  Memoirs  that,  frankly, 
engage  him  more.  In  the  same  vein  writes  another 
anonymous  author  of  a  lengthy  notice,  which  has  first 
place  in  the  contents  of  The  Monthly  Repository  of 
Theology  and  General  Literature  for  August,  1825. 
"Few,"  he  confidently  asserts,  "besides  those  that 
have  studied  the  history  of  the  drama  will  take  any 
interest  in  his  [Pepys's]  descriptions  of  the  number- 
less performances  that  he  witnessed."  As  might  be 
expected  from  the  somewhat  special  nature  of  his 
medium,  this  reviewer  finds  the  Diarist's  accounts  of 
sermons  more  interesting  than  his  records  of  plays. 

Of  a  different  order,  though  like  these  notices  in 
unfavorable  tone,  is  Francis  Jeffrey's  trenchant 
criticism  which  appeared,  also  in  1825,  in  the  Novem- 
ber number  of  The  Edinburgh  Review.  After  a 
relentlessly  severe  examination  of  Pepys's  charac- 
ter— his  "ignoble  taste  for  dress,"  his  "want  of  manli- 
ness," his  "penuriousness,"  and  his  many  other  frail- 
ties—the critic  proceeds  to  the  dramatic  comment  in 
the  Diary;  and  one  cannot  help  feeling  that  Lord 
Jeffrey's  disapproval  of  the  man  unduly  colored  his 


8    PEPYS  ON  THE  RESTORATION  STAGE 

view  of  the  informal  chronicler  of  the  early  Restora- 
tion stage.  His  concern  for  the  moral  throughout  the 
theatrical  material  seems  invariably  to  encroach  upon 
his  estimate  of  the  value  of  the  evidence.  Of  his  gen- 
eral method  the  handling  of  the  following  passage  is 
typical.  In  an  entry  of  October  5,  1667,  Pepys  had 
noted  in  connection  with  a  certain  performance  that 
\  it  was  "pretty"  to  see  how  Nell  Gwyn  "cursed  for 
having  so  few  people  in  the  pit."  "Now,  whether  it 
(was  strange  or  not,"  remarks  Jeffrey,  "it  was  cer- 
tainly very  wrong  in  Nell  to  curse  so  unmercifully, 
even  at  a  thin  house";  and  he  chastises  Pepys  roundly 
for  seeming  to  approve.  Hence  the  spirit  of  the 
whole  criticism  must  be  taken  into  account  in  ap- 
proaching its  final  conclusions.  "There  is,"  declares 
Jeffrey  at  the  end  of  the  essay,  "no  literary  intelli- 
gence of  any  value  to  be  gained  from  this  work. 
Play  collectors  will  probably  find  the  names  of  many 
lost  pieces — but  of  our  classical  authors  there  are  no 
notices  worth  naming." 

Over  against  Lord  Jeffrey's  arraignment,  it  is 
instructive  to  set  Sir  Walter  Scott's  appreciation  in 
The  Quarterly  Review  for  March,  1826,  in  an  article 
on  Pepys 's  Memoirs,  about  which  he  wrote  to  Lock- 
hart,  "The  subject  is  like  a  good  sirloin,  which  re- 
quires only  to  be  basted  with  its  own  drippings." 
Scott  is  in  agreement  with  the  critic  of  the  Edinburgh 
on  one  important  point,  the  lack  of  literary  taste  dis- 
played by  Pepys  in  his  comments  on  Shakespeare. 
In  most  other  matters,  the  two  reviewers  differ — in 
nothing  more  widely  than  in  general  temper.  Scott 
cannot  mention  the  name  of  Nell  Gwyn  without  be- 


THE  CRITICS  AND  PEPYS'S  MATERIAL         9 

traying  his  greater  humanity.  "Pepys,"  writes  the 
novelist,  "in  his  love  of  wit  and  admiration  of  beauty 
finds  room  to  love  and  admire  Nell  Gwynn,  whose 
name  still  carries  an  odd  fascination  with  it  after  so 
many  generations."  The  Diary  Scott  regards  as  rich 
"in  every  species  of  information  concerning  the 
author's  century."  In  short,  he  believes  that  it  con- 
tains annotations  "for  a  new  edition  of  the  Roscius 
Anglicanus,"3  and  he  concludes  that  "if  the  curious 
affect  dramatic  antiquities,  no  book  published  in  our 
time  has  thrown  so  much  light  upon  plays,  play- 
wrights, and  playactors."  Thus  highly  does  the  past 
master  of  the  art  of  the  novel  rate  the  past  master  of 
the  unpremeditated  art  of  the  diary. 

But  before  Scott's  estimate  appeared,  anonymous 
reviewers  had  already  emphasized  over  and  over  again 
in  the  current  periodicals  the  importance  of  Pepys's 
picture  of  the  Restoration  stage.  Perhaps  the  most 
interesting  of  the  favorable  comments  are  those  in 
The  Gentleman's  Magazine  (September  and  Octo- 
ber, 1825),  The  New  Monthly  Magazine  and  Liter- 
ary Journal  (Part  II,  1825),  and  The  London 
Literary  Gazette  (June  18- August  13,  1825).  Al- 
though the  reviewer  for  The  Gentleman's  Magazine 
does  not  wax  enthusiastic  over  the  Diary  as  a  whole, 
he  readily  grants  that  Pepys  "has  thrown  light  on 
the  dramatic  history  of  his  age."  The  New  Monthly 
Magazine  is  more  outspoken  in  its  praise.  "Those 
who  are  well  read  in  the  dramatic  works  of  Shake- 
speare, Ben  Jonson,  Dryden,  Killigrew,  Sedley, 

3  Roscius  Anglicanus,  or  An  Historical  Review  of  the  Stage 
.   .   .  from  1660  to  1706.     [By  John  Dowries.]     1708. 


10   PEPYS  ON  THE  RESTORATION  STAGE 

Beaumont  and  Fletcher,  &c.,"  writes  its  critic,  "will 
receive  great  pleasure  from  the  frequent  notices  of 
the  reception  their  works  met  with  from  the  polite 
audiences  of  King  Charles's  day."  He  then  proceeds 
to  remark  that  the  names  of  the  famous  players  of 
the  period  occur  in  the  Diary  "as  frequently  as  those 
of  the  heads  of  the  treasury  and  exchequer,  and  this 
passion  of  our  author  has  perhaps  thrown  more  light 
upon  the  history  of  the  stage,  than  is  to  be  obtained 
even  in  Gibber's  Apology,  or  any  other  contemporary 
work  on  the  subject." 

No  writer  of  that  day,  however,  made  more  of  the 
Diary,  or,  indeed,  of  the  theatrical  material  it  con- 
tains, than  the  anonymous  author  of  the  nine  extended 
notices  which  appeared  between  June  18  and  August 
13,  1825,  in  "the  most  influential  of  the  purely  liter- 
ary weeklies" — The  London  Literary  Gazette,  edited 
by  William  Jerdan.  In  the  second  of  these  notices, 
the  reviewer  prefaces  a  long  series  of  quotations  deal- 
ing with  the  stage,  with  the  following  prophecy:  "Mr. 
Pepys  was  a  great  playgoer,  and  his  remarks  on  the 
first  nights  of  plays,  which  now  constitute  our  ancient 
drama,  will  be  read  with  much  interest ;  they  also  inci- 
dentally serve  happily  to  illustrate  the  manners  of 
the  times."  That  the  readers  of  this  weekly  took  an 
even  livelier  interest  in  the  material  in  question  than 
the  reviewer  anticipated,  may  be  inferred  from  the 
frequency  with  which  he  recurs  to  this  theme  in  suc- 
ceeding notices.  In  the  Gazette  of  July  2  he  is  ready 
to  "resume  upon  the  generally  pleasing  topic  of  the 
drama  and  stage"  with  another  copious  selection  of 
quotations.  Again,  in  the  next  issue,  he  thinks  it 


THE  CRITICS  AND  PEPYS'S  MATERIAL       11 

worth  while  "to  follow  our  last  week's  discourse,  and 
set  out  with  the  drama."  Indeed,  not  until  the  eighth 
installment,  does  he  at  length  "beg  leave  to  resume 
and  wind  up  the  notices  connected  with  the  Drama 
and  state  of  dramatic  representations  in  the  time  of 
Pepys."  In  so  doing,  he  manages  to  quote  about 
forty  more  passages,  which  added  to  the  number  of 
those  previously  cited,  bring  the  sum  total  of  excerpts 
touching  the  stage  to  over  a  hundred.  As  they  are 
confessedly  heaped  up  in  proportion  to  popular  relish 
for  them,  there  is  here  eloquent  testimony  to  the 
appreciation  they  received  from  the  readers  of  1825. 
As  for  the  reviewer,  it  appears  that  he  was  con- 
sciously attempting  to  do  in  The  London  Literary 
Gazette  >  in  an  informal  way,  what  the  author  of  this 
work  has  attempted  to  do  formally  in  the  present  vol- 
ume. "With  this  we  close  our  dramatic  extracts," 
he  comments  after  his  final  group,  "which  being  put 
together,  make  in  our  opinion,  a  very  valuable  addi- 
tion to  the  history  of  the  stage." 

Thus  exploited,  the  dramatic  and  theatrical  mate- 
rials contained  in  the  Diary  pass  out  of  the  hands  of 
the  reviewer  of  new  books  into  the  hands  of  the  liter- 
ary historian  and  biographer,  whose  permanent  pos- 
session they  have  long  since  become.  Among  the  lit- 
erary chroniclers,  John  Genest  was  the  first  to  make 
use  of  them,  on  a  large  scale,  in  that  landmark  in 
the  history  of  our  drama,  Some  Account  of  the  Eng- 
lish Stage,  published  in  1832.  For  this  reason,  rather 
than  because  of  what  is  added  to  the  discussion,  it 
may  be  of  interest  to  recall  his  terse  remarks:  "The 
theatrical  intelligence  contained  in  two  large  4to. 


12       PEPYS  ON  THE  RESTORATION  STAGE 

Vols.  is  not  very  great  in  quantity,  but  it  is  highly 
valuable,  on  account  of  dates — and  because  Pepys 
mentions  the  revival  of  several  old  plays  not  noticed 
by  Downes  or  Langbaine  as  having  been  revived."4 
From  Genest  to  The  Cambridge  History  of  English 
Literature,  which  asserts  that  "the  Diary  contains  a 
mine  of  information  respecting  the  theatres,"  com- 
ment on  the  subject  is  so  frequent  and  so  widely  scat- 
tered as  to  make  further  quotation  from  the  histories 
and  biographies  impracticable.  Suffice  it  to  say  that 
from  1825  down,  no  important  work  bearing  upon 
the  stage  of  this  period  has  failed  to  testify  to  the 
value  of  Pepys's  journal  as  documentary  evidence. 
It  "remains,"  says  Sir  A.  W.  Ward,  "of  course  the 
standard  authority  as  to  the  history  of  the  Restora- 
tion stage."  But  even  more  striking  than  such 
acknowledgments  is  the  silent  tribute  that  has  been 
paid  to  it  by  Continental  as  well  as  by  English  and 
American  writers  in  innumerable  citations  from  its 
pages. 

Special  mention,  however,  may  well  be  made  of 
certain  studies,  impetus  to  which  has  in  part  been 
given  by  the  fuller  editions  of  the  Diary  by  Rev. 
Mynors  Bright  (1875-1879)  and  Mr.  Henry  B. 
Wheatley  (1893-1899).  It  was  the  Bright  edition 
that  called  forth  Robert  Louis  Stevenson's  character- 
istic paper  on  Samuel  Pepys,  now  included  in  Famil- 
iar Studies  of  Men  and  Books.  Stevenson  did  not 
hesitate  to  affirm  that  Pepys  both  "warmly  loved  and 
understood"  the  stage,  or  to  defend  the  Diarist  in  his 

4  Some  Account  of  the  English  Stage  .    .   .  ,  Bath,  1832,  I,  39. 


THE  CRITICS  AND  PEPYS'S  MATERIAL       13 

fine,  spirited  way  against  some  of  the  aspersions  that 
have  been  cast  upon  Pepys's  attitude  towards  Shake- 
speare. In  further  discussion  of  the  Diarist's  entries 
relating  to  this  topic,  has  appeared  still  more  recently 
Sir  Sidney  Lee's  notable  study  of  Pepys  and  Shake- 
speare? 

But  to  Henry  B.  Wheatley  belongs  the  honor  in 
our  day  of  having  added  most  to  our  knowledge  and 
potential  appreciation  of  the  parts  of  Pepys's  Diary 
dealing  with  the  stage.  The  results  of  his  scholarly 
researches  are  incorporated  not  only  in  the  excellent 
notes  to  his  edition,  but  also  in  a  chapter  on  the  theatre 
in  Samuel  Pepys  and  the  World  He  Lived  In  (1880) 
and  in  the  sections  in  his  Pepysiana  (1899)  on  Actors 
and  Actresses  and  The  Stage.  Mr.  Wheatley 's  sig- 
nificant conclusions  are  too  numerous  and  too  detailed 
to  admit  of  quotation  here.  They  will,  however,  fre- 
quently be  cited  in  the  notes  on  the  material  from 
Pepys  contained  in  this  book,  which  follows  the  text 
of  the  admirable  and  now,  at  last,  practically  com- 
plete version  of  the  Diary  that  we  owe  to  its  latest 
editor. 

The  two  following  introductory  chapters  will  take 
up  more  specifically  the  chief  facts  in  Pepys's  account 
of  the  drama  and  the  theatre  of  his  day. 

5  Included  in  Shakespeare  and  the  Modern  Stage,  with  other 
Essays,  New  York,  1906. 


II 

PEPYS  AS  A  DRAMATIC  HISTORIAN 


II 

PEPYS  AS  A  DRAMATIC  HISTORIAN 

If,  as  has  been  said,  Pepys's  Diary  is  "a  mine  of 
information  respecting  the  history  of  the  stage,"  no 
one  can  complain  that  it  has  been  indifferently 
worked.  Ever  since  its  first  appearance  in  the  incom- 
plete edition  of  1825,  specialists  in  Elizabethan  plays 
and  in  Restoration  plays,  students  of  the  theatre — 
of  its  music  and  its  manners,  of  the  art  of  staging  and 
the  art  of  acting — have  ransacked  its  pages,  each  for 
his  particular  purpose.  As  a  result,  the  Diarist's 
name  is  today  inseparably  linked  with  the  names  of 
the  actors,  the  managers,  and  the  dramatists  of  his 
time.  His  casual  comments  have  become  a  part  of 
the  traditio  of  the  English  stage. 

To  be  specific,  what  Pepys  has  given  us  is  a  body 
of  closely  dated,  firsthand  evidence  as  to  the  history 
of  the  theatre  in  the  first  decade  of  Charles  the  Sec- 
ond's reign.  Its  value  is  enhanced  by  the  critical 
importance  of  the  time  it  covers.  For  two  reasons 
the  early  years  of  the  Restoration  period  are  of  espe- 
cial interest  to  the  student  of  the  stage :  first,  because 
with  the  reopening  of  the  playhouses  after  the  Puri- 
tan interregnum,  during  which  they  had  remained 
officially  closed,  the  drama  and  theatre  entered  upon 
a  new  life;  and,  secondly,  because  during  the  decade 
of  1660-1670,  as  so  seldom  has  happened,  the  two  arts 


f 


18   PEPYS  ON  THE  RESTORATION  STAGE 

developed  side  by  side.  Fortunately  for  us,  our 
informal  historian  was  interested  in  both  aspects  of 
the  contemporary  stage,  in  the  production  of  plays  as 
\  well  as  in  the  plays  themselves.  Thus  we  find  in  his 
^journal  accounts  not  only  of  the  rise  of  rhymed  heroic 
tragedy  and  the  new  "society  comedy,"  but  also  of 
the  innovations  in  the  employment  of  actresses  and 
movable  scenery.  He  contributes  alike  to  our  knowl- 
edge of  the  continued  popularity  of  pre-Restoration 
plays,  the  contemporary  attitude  towards  Shake- 
speare, the  minor  as  well  as  the  major  dramatists  of 
the  period,  the  vogue  of  French  and  Spanish  plays  in 
translation ;  and  to  our  information  about  the  reopen- 
ing of  the  theatres,  the  personalities  of  the  well- 
known  people  in  the  theatrical  world — many  of  whom 
he  knew  intimately — and  the  manners  and  customs  of 
the  Restoration  playhouses.  Especially  important 

Care  his  accounts  of  the  years  from  1660  to  1663,  of 
which  there  is  elsewhere  scant  reliable  record. 

Yet  certain  objections  have  been  raised  from  time 
to  time  to  Pepys  as  a  dramatic  historian.  There  is, 
first  of  all,  the  question,  Is  he  accurate?  It  cannot, 
of  course,  be  shown  that  he  invariably  is.  Besides,  it 
would  be  too  much  to  expect  from  the  Diary  scrupu- 
lous exactness  in  all  things,  for  in  this,  no  less  than  in 
other  matters,  standards  have  changed  since  Charles 
the  Second's  reign.  Occasionally,  there  is  a  discon- 
certing divergence  between  the  account  of  an  event 
recorded  by  Pepys  and  that  recorded  by  some  other 
supposedly  good  authority.  Thus,  in  referring  to 
the  opening  of  the  Duke  of  York's  playhouse  in  Lin- 
coln's Inn  Fields  as  having  taken  place  late  in  June, 


PEPYS  AS  A  DRAMATIC  HISTORIAN          19 

1661,  the  Diarist  conflicts  seriously  with  John 
Downes,  who  states  that  it  occurred  in  the  spring  of 
1662 — and  who  had  reason  to  know  since  he  was 
prompter  at  this  theatre.  Again,  Pepys  twice  refers 
to  May  7,  1663,  as  the  date  of  the  first  performance 
at  the  new  King's  theatre  in  Drury  Lane,  whereas 
according  to  this  same  Downes  and  a  playbill — which 
R.  W.  Lowe  terms  "a  not  very  astute  forgery" — this 
performance  took  place  on  April  8.  In  both  these 
cases,  it  looks  as  if  either  Pepys  or  Downes  must  have 
been  misinformed,  though  facts  may  yet  be  brought 
to  light  which  will  reconcile  the  conflicting  state- 
ments. Moreover,  as  rumor  did  not  travel  rapidly  in  / 
an  age  when  there  were  no  daily  newspapers,  it  would 
be  strange  if  Pepys's  information  were  not  at  times 
stale.  We  know  this  to  be  the  case,  for  instance,  with 
his  report  of  Abraham  Cowley's  death,  which  he  first 
enters  under  August  10,  1667,  when,  as  a  matter  of 
fact,  the  poet  had  been  dead  thirteen  days. 

But  in  how  many  instances  the  Diarist's  dates  are 
actually  wrong,  the  investigator  may  well-nigh  de- 
spair of  determining;  the  difficulty  is  that  nearly  all 
the  clues,  in  the  external  evidence  at  least,  lead  in  a 
circle  and  so  eventually  back  to  Pepys.  This  is  the 
case  with  many  of  the  statements  about  the  early 
Restoration  performances  made  by  Genest.  Downes 
and  Langbaine  cover  the  same  period,  it  is  true,  but 
their  material  is  rarely  closely  dated.  Some  slight 
basis  for  comparison  is,  however,  afforded  by  the 
Diary  of  John  Evelyn  and  a  list  found  among  the 
papers  of  Sir  Henry  Herbert — then  Master  of  the 
Revels — of  plays  acted  by  Killigrew's  company.  In 


20   PEPYS  ON  THE  RESTORATION  STAGE 

several  instances  statements  in  them  corroborate 
Pepys,  and  in  no  case  do  they  definitely  conflict  with 
him.  Pepys  saw  five  performances  at  the  King's 
theatre  which  are  also  mentioned  under  the  same 
dates  in  the  list  just  referred  to,  and  records  two  per- 
formances of  plays  which  are  also  recorded  by  Eve- 
lyn. It  is  interesting  to  find  both  the  diarists  giving 
accounts  of  the  presentations  of  Tuke's  The  Adven- 
tures of  Five  Hours,  on  January  8,  1663,  and  of 
Dry  den's  An  Evening's  Love,  or  The  Mock  Astrol- 
oger, on  June  19,  1668;  and  it  is  instructive  to  com- 
pare their  respective  comments.  Few  as  they  are, 
these  corroborations  cannot  but  confirm  the  student  in 
the  tendency  to  accept  the  dates  of  Pepys's  journal, 
in  the  main,  without  question. 

Another  charge  that  has  been  brought  against  the 
Diarist  as  a  dramatic  historian  is  that  he  does  not 
always  give  names  and  titles  correctly — even  allow- 
ing for  the  laxity  of  the  age  in  matters  of  spelling. 
There  is  a  reference,  for  example,  on  September  14, 
1667,  to  a  play  which  he  calls  The  Northern  Castle. 
No  such  play  is  known,  and  it  seems  probable  that 
the  title  as  Pepys  gives  it  may  have  been  a  slip  for 
The  Northern  Lass,  a  comedy  by  Richard  Brome. 
Possibly,  too,  in  certain  instances,  the  Diarist  ascribes 
plays  to  the  wrong  authors.  He  mentions  on  Sep- 
tember 15,  1668,  a  play  translated  "out  of  French  by 
Dryden  called  'The  Ladys  a  la  Mode,' '  —which  may 
have  been  a  mistake  for  Richard  Flecknoe's  Damoi- 
selles  a  la  Mode;  and  in  his  entry  under  December  10, 
1663,  he  refers  to  Shakespeare's  Henry  VIII — be- 
fore he  has  seen  it,  to  be  sure — as  Sir  William 


PEPYS  AS  A  DRAMATIC  HISTORIAN          21 

D'Avenant's  "story  of  Henry  the  Eighth  with  all  his 
wives."  But  anyone  who  examines  into  the  matter, 
will  soon  discover  that  inaccuracies  such  as  these  are, 
so  far  as  can  be  judged,  the  exception. 

The  unique  value  of  Pepys's  comment  on  the 
Restoration  stage  lies,  as  has  been  said,  as  much  in 
the  kind  as  in  the  mere  bulk  of  material  he  presents. 
His  was  indeed  a  many-sided  interest.  In  intellectual 
and  moral  tolerance,  where  the  theatre  is  concerned, 
he  stands  in  striking  contrast  to  his  fellow- diarist 
Evelyn,  who  speaks  of  "very  seldom  going  to  the  pub- 
liq  theaters  for  many  reasons,"  his  chief  complaint 
being  against  the  "foule  and  undecent  women  now 
(and  never  till  now)  permitted  to  appear  and  act." 
Evelyn  flattered  himself  on  one  occasion  that  he  was 
"far  from  Puritanisme" ;  but  he  was  not  so  far  from 
it  that  moral  scruples  did  not  stand  between  him  and 
a  whole-hearted  appreciation  of  what  the  contem- 
porary theatre  had  to  offer.  As  for  Pepys,  he  could 
enjoy  without  let  or  hindrance  everything  about  it, 
from  Betterton's  Hamlet  to  the  orange-girls.  "It 
is  in  virtue  of  his  own  desires  and  curiosities,"  says 
Stevenson,  "that  any  man  ...  is  charmed  by  the 
look  of  things  anol  people."  Thus  it  was  with  Pepys 
at  the  playhouse.  His  curiosity  was  unbounded  here 
as  elsewhere.  He  liked  to  read  plays  on  his  trips  to 
and  from  Deptford  on  Admiralty  business  as  well 
as  to  see  them  at  the  theatre.  Hence  everything  and 
everybody  on  the  stage  appealed  to  him.  His 
accounts  of  performances  are,  of  course,  for  this  rea- 
son peculiarly  satisfactory;  if  there  was  a  single 
novel  or  exceptional  fact  about  the  play,  the  players, 


22   PEPYS  ON  THE  RESTORATION  STAGE 

the  scenery,  the  music,  the  dancing,  the  audience,  or 
the  theatre  itself,  we  feel  certain  that  he  has  noted  it. 
Whatever  may  be  said  of  Pepys's  critical  acumen,  re- 
marks a  recent  writer,  "no  one  has  ever  impeached  his 
powers  of  observation." 

The  Diarist  was  not,  to  be  sure,  equally  competent 
to  judge  in  all  these  matters.  It  has  been  frequently 
charged  that  his  criticisms  of  the  plays  are  not  so 
satisfactory  as  his  criticisms  of  the  acting,  which  seems 
often  to  have  mattered  to  him  more.  In  a  cer- 
tain instance,  Pepys  realized  this  himself.  When 
Young,  "but  a  bad  actor  at  best,"  took  Thomas  Bet- 
terton's  famous  part  in  one  of  Pepys's  favorite  plays, 
Macbeth,  the  Diarist  exclaims:  "Lord!  what  a  preju- 
dice it  wrought  in  me  against  the  whole  play!"  But 
this  does  not  mean  that  he  was  without  literary  taste 
or  that  he  invariably  judged  a  piece  solely  on  its  act- 
ing qualities.  He  could  thoroughly  appreciate  a  play 
like  Jonson's  Catiline,,  which  he  insisted  had  "much 
good  sense  and  words  to  read,"  even  though  it  ap- 
peared "the  worst  upon  the  stage,  I  mean,  the  least 
diverting,  that  ever  I  saw  any."  At  any  rate,  he  had 
his  own  theories  of  what  was  justifiable  in  tragedy, 
and  of  what  was  proper  material  for  comedy,  dis- 
tinguishing between  true  "wit"  and  mere  "fooling" 
or,  as  he  calls  it,  "mirth  fit  for  clowns."  From  his 
criticism  of  Etherege's  She  Would  if  She  Could,  it 
is  evident  that  "witty"  and  "roguish"  dialogue  did 
not  wholly  blind  him  to  deficiencies  of  plot;  while  in 
the  case  of  Lord  Orrery,  whom  he  admired  as  a  dram- 
atist in  many  ways,  he  recognized  the  limitations 
which  made  one  of  his  plays  of  "just  the  very  same 


PEPYS  AS  A  DRAMATIC  HISTORIAN          23 

design,  and  words,  and  sense,  and  plot"  as  every 
other. 

Pepys's  literary  judgment  has  been  questioned 
mainly  on  the  ground  of  his  attitude  towards  Shake- 
speare, which  is  betrayed  in  certain  "delicious  bits  of 
criticism,"  as  Professor  Lounsbury  has  called  them, 
"whose  impudent  inappreciativeness  later  critics  have 
occasionally  equalled,  but  whose  charm  they  have 
never  been  able  even  remotely  to  rival."  In  this  con- 
nection, his  wholesale  condemnation  of  A  Midsum- 
mer-Night's Dream  as  "the  most  insipid  ridiculous 
play  that  ever  I  saw  in  my  life,"  and  his  disparaging 
comparison  of  Othello  with  Tuke's  The  Adventures 
of  Five  Hours  have  usually  been  cited.  Now, 
although,  as  Stevenson  says,  the  Diarist's  failure  to 
appreciate  these  and  other  plays  of  Shakespeare  on 
the  stage  is  not  "without  either  parallel  or  excuse," 
there  is  no  need  to  minimize  its  import.  Yet  in  pass- 
ing judgment,  two  modifying  circumstances  must  at 
the  same  time  be  borne  in  mind — on  the  one  hand, 
the  nature  of  the  record  Pepys  kept,  which  attempted 
to  do  no  more  than  jot  down  among  a  thousand  other 
matters  first  impressions  of  plays,  and,  on  the  other 
hand,  the  nature  of  the  Shakespearean  productions 
he  saw.  Some  of  these  were  redeemed,  we  know,  by 
the  acting  of  the  Bettertons,  but  others  must  have  ^ 
been  hopelessly  inadequate.  Besides,  it  should  not  be 
forgotten  in  any  final  appraisal  that  Pepys  never 
tired  of  seeing  Hamlet — even  trying  at  one  time  to 
get  "To  bee  or  not  to  bee"  "without  book";  that  he 
held  Henry  IV  "a  good  play";  and  that  he  was 
"mightily  pleased"  with  Henry  Fill.  In  short, 


24   PEPYS  ON  THE  RESTORATION  STAGE 

although  it  may  be  true  that,  as  Sir  Sidney  Lee  says, 
he  "lived  and  died  in  complacent  unconsciousness  of 
Shakespeare's  supreme  excellence,"  there  is  little  in 
his  references  to  signify  that  Pepys  wholly  shared 
what  has  sometimes  been  assumed  to  be  the  conven- 
tional Restoration  attitude  towards  Shakespeare, 
based  upon  such  views  as  that  expressed  by  Evelyn 
after  seeing  Hamlet:  "Now  the  old  plays  began  to 
disgust  this  refined  age  since  his  Majestie's  being  so 
long  abroad." 

As  a  dramatic  historian,  it  should  also  be  men- 
tioned that  Pepys  was  in  two  respects  free  from  the 
prejudices  of  his  time — or  possibly,  one  should  say, 
of  the  Court  circle  of  his  time.  There  is,  first  of  all, 
his  standpoint  on  the  morality  of  the  stage.  This 
question,  like  the  question  of  his  feeling  for  Shake- 
speare, cannot  fairly  be  considered  apart  from  the 
general  theory  and  practice  of  the  Diary  as  a  whole. 
It  must  be  remembered  that  Pepys  never  aims  at  any- 
thing like  such  completeness  or  finality  in  his  picture 
of  a  play  on  the  stage  as  we  are  accustomed  to  expect 
from  the  modern  dramatic  reviewer.  Neither  is  he 
writing  for  the  edification  of  the  public.  He  is  only 
noting  for  his  own  private  benefit  the  particular 
aspects  of  the  production  that  for  one  reason  or 
another  stood  out  to  him  as  of  especial  interest. 
Hence,  quite  naturally,  we  do  not  find  the  Diarist 
putting  every  play  he  sees,  or  indeed  every  play 
which  might  well  be  examined  on  this  ground, 
to  a  rigid  moral  test.  On  the  other  hand,  from 
the  comments  that  Pepys  makes  from  time  to 
time  on  the  moral  issue,  it  would  seem  hardly 


PEPYS  AS  A  DRAMATIC  HISTORIAN          25 

justifiable  to  conclude,  as  does  a  recent  writer,  that 
"Pepys  criticises  the  plays  he  so  loved  to  frequent 
from  almost  every  other  point  of  view  than  the 
moral,"  or  yet  to  assert  that  he  is  never  "distressfully 
disturbed  by  the  improprieties  afterward  discovered 
by  Collier  and  his  successors  in  the  theatre."1  For 
one  thing,  he  looked  with  disapproval  upon  the  gross 
immorality  of  Thomas  Killigrew's  The  Parson's 
Wedding.  Even  though  all  the  world  commended 
Dry  den's  Mock  Astrologer,  he  did  "not  like  it,  it 
being  very  smutty."  He  came  out  positively  in  favor 
of  Brome's  Jovial  Crew  as  "merry  and  the  most  inno- 
cent play  that  ever  I  saw";  while  of  Sir  Samuel 
Tuke's  Adventures  of  Five  Hours  he  enthusiastically 
writes :  "The  play  in  one  word,  is  the  best  .  .  .  that 
ever  I  saw,  or  think  ever  shall,  and  all  possible,  not 
only  to  be  done  in  the  time,  but  in  most  other  respects 
very  admittable,  and  without  one  word  of  ribaldry." 
This  testimony  of  Pepys,  along  with  that  of  Evelyn, 
would  seem  to  indicate  that  while  the  Court  of  the  ^ 
Merry  Monarch  countenanced  gross  immorality  on 
the  stage,  and  even  fathered  it — as  Dryden  later 
charged — the  "City"  was  never  wholly  reconciled  to 
it. 

Again,  Pepys's  opinion  differed  from  that  which  J 
the  Restoration  Court  is  generally  held  to  have  im-; 
posed  upon  the  contemporary  stage,  on  the  merits! 
of  the  rhymed  couplet  for  heroic  plays.     In  a  refer- 
ence  to   The  Indian   Queen,   by   Dryden   and   Sir 
Robert  Howard,  the  Diarist  appears  emphatically 

1  Cf,  John  Palmer,  The  Comedy  of  Manners,  1913,  pp.  5-6. 


26       PEPYS  ON  THE  RESTORATION  STAGE 

against  its  use.     "The  play  good,"  he  writes,  "but 
spoiled  with  the  ryme,  which  breaks  the  sense." 

One  habit  of  Pepys  as  a  playgoer  works  to  the 
especial  good  fortune  of  the  modern  student.  This 
is  his  practice  of  going  to  see  the  same  play  several 
times  over,  at  intervals  varying  from  two  or  three 
days  to  two  or  three  years.  And  since  he  is  more  con- 
cerned with  fidelity  to  the  immediate  fact  than  with 
consistency  to  former  statements,  we  are  thus  enabled 
to  see  one  play  from  several  different  angles.  Often 
he  did  not  come  to  any  definite  conclusion  about  it 
until  the  second  or  third  performance,  meantime  test- 
ing his  preconceived  prejudices,  if  he  had  any,  noting 
the  implication  of  new  impressions,  and,  in  general, 
keeping  an  open  mind.  This  is  well  illustrated  in  his 
various  accounts  of  a  contemporary  tragedy  by 
Thomas  Porter  called  The  Villain.  The  first  time 
Pepys  saw  it,  he  was  "never  less  pleased  with  a  play 
in  my  life";  the  second  time,  he  was  "better  pleased 
with  the  play  than  I  was  at  first,  understanding  the 
design  better  than  I  did";  and  the  third  time  he 
records,  "The  more  I  see  it,  the  more  I  am  offended 
at  my  first  undervaluing  the  play,  it  being  very  good 
and  pleasant,  and  yet  a  true  and  allowable  tragedy." 
With  Dryden's  popular  comedy,  Sir  Martin  Mar-all, 
his  experience  was  just  the  reverse.  He  first  saw  it 
on  August  16,  1667,  the  day  after  its  premiere,  and 
"never  laughed  so  in  all  my  life" ;  then  on  August  19 
and  20,  still  finding  it  "a  very  ingenious  play,  and 
full  of  variety."  Six  weeks  later  he  witnesses  another 
performance  "with  great  delight,  though  I  have  seen 
it  so  often";  then  once  more  before  the  year  is  out, 


PEPYS  AS  A  DRAMATIC  HISTORIAN          27 

and  three  times  in  1668.  His  enjoyment  of  it  never 
lessens;  the  last  time  he  mentions  it,  he  writes: 
"Though  I  have  seen  it,  I  think,  ten  times,  yet  the 
pleasure  I  have  is  yet  as  great  as  ever."  New  de- 
tails, if  not  fresh  impressions,  were  generally  gath- 
ered with  each  performance,  and  to  his  habit  of  see- 
ing plays  repeated,  Pepys's  record  owes  much  of  its 
value.  Indeed,  we  are  in  so  far  indebted  to  the  Diar- 
ist for  this  persistence  in  attending  the  theatre  that 
we  must  even  forgive  him  the  absurd  casuistry  with 
which  he  manipulates  his  frequent  vows  to  stay 
away. 

In  short,  i^cannot  be  said  that  Pepys  was  either  a 
professed  literary  critic  or  a  typical  Restoration  play- 
goer. Beyond  the  average  man,  he  was  open-minded 
and  sincere  in  his  appreciation  of  various  types  of 
plays,  and  many-sided  and  indefatigable  in  his  inter- 
est in  the  theatre.  Yet  while  he  was  too  individual  to 
subscribe  in  every  matter  to  the  stage  conventions  of 
the  period,  his  power  of  observing  closely  others  as 
well  as  himself,  enabled  him  to  body  forth  with  pecu- 
liar realism  the  attitude  of  his  age. 

The  intrinsic  worth  and  unique  interest  of  the  evi- 
dence, as  a  whole,  that  Pepys  has  preserved  for  us 
can  be  grasped  only  by  an  examination  of  its  full 
content.  But  perhaps  the  significance  of  a  few  of 
the  comments  on  certain  important  groups  of  plays 
should  be  pointed  out  in  advance. 

At  first  glance,  the  entries  in  the  Diary  for  the 
dramas  of  the  pre-Restoration  period  point  to  the 
overwhelming  popularity,  during  the  decade  suc- 
ceeding the  King's  return,  of  the  romances  of  Beau- 


28   PEPYS  ON  THE  RESTORATION  STAGE 

mont  and  Fletcher,  over  twenty-five  of  which  Pepys 
saw  at  one  time  or  another.  A  reading  of  his  criti- 
cisms in  full  will  show,  however,  that  he,  at  least,  did 
not  admire  them  as  he  did  the  plays  of  Jonson.  The 
Maid's  Tragedy  he  found  on  first  hearing  "too  sad 
and  melancholy,"  though  later  he  thought  it  "a  good 
play";  and  Philaster  was  "far  short  of  my  expecta- 
tions." But  when  it  came  to  Jonson,  his  praise  was 
not  thus  tempered.  The  Alchemist  he  held  to  be  "a 
most  incomparable  play";  he  declared  that  The  Silent 
Woman  had  "more  wit  in  it  than  goes  to  ten  new 
plays";  Volpone  was  "the  best  I  think  I  ever  saw." 
For  Shirley,  more  of  whose  plays  (nine  in  all)  are 
referred  to  as  being  produced  than  any  other  drama- 
tist of  his  period  excepting  Beaumont  and  Fletcher 
and  Shakespeare,  Pepys  cared  less,  admiring  only 
The  Traitor,  as  "a  very  good  Tragedy."  Along  with 
this  should  be  mentioned  Massinger's  The  Bondman, 
which  from  the  Diary  would  seem  to  have  been  among 
the  most  successful  plays  of  the  time,  perhaps  because 
it  provided  Betterton  with  one  of  his  best  parts.  "To 
the  Opera,"  writes  Pepys  after  a  certain  perform- 
ance, "where  we  saw  'The  Bondman/  which  of  old  we 
both  did  so  doat  on,  and  do  still" ;  and  again,  "There  is 
nothing  more  taking  in  the  world  with  me  than  that 
play."  Qf  the  twelve  plays  of  Shakespeare  which 
Pepys  saw  staged,  at  least  eight  seem  to  have  been 
acted  substantially  unaltered,  four  being  given  in 
contemporary  versions.  From  the  Diary  we  learn 
that  the  general  popularity  of  Hamlet,  Henry  VIII, 
and  Othello,  which  were  among  the  unaltered  plays, 
should  be  set  over  against  the  success  of  D'Avenant's 


PEPYS  AS  A  DRAMATIC  HISTORIAN          29 

Macbeth  and  Dry  den  and  D'Avenant's  The  Tempest 
in  any  consideration  of  the  Restoration  view  of 
Shakespeare. 

Pepys  also  supplies  us  with  significant  evidence  as 
to  the  brief  day  of  rhymed  heroic  drama.  He  ap- 
plauds at  length  the  success  of  the  Earl  of  Orrery's 
plays — said  to  have  been  written  at  the  instigation  of 
Royalty — The  Black  Prince,  Henry  the  Fifth,  and 
Mustapha,  this  last,  "a  most  admirable  poem,  and 
bravely  acted."  At  the  same  time  he  dissents  from 
the  general  opinion  about  other  plays  of  this  type. 
Besides  feeling  that  The  Indian  Queen  was  "spoiled 
with  the  ryme,"  he  calls  the  sequel,  Dryden's  The 
Indian  Emperor,  "a  good  play,  but  not  so  good  as 
people  cry  it  up."  Moreover,  on  April  16,  1669,  he 
notes  a  bit  of  gossip,  which  in  its  tone  would  seem  to 
presage  the  coming  of  Buckingham's  Rehearsal  and 
the  beginning  of  the  end  of  heroic  drama:  "I  did  meet 
with  Shadwell,  the  poet,  who,  to  my  great  wonder, 
do  tell  me  that  my  Lord  of  [Orrery]  did  write  this 
play  [Guzman],  trying  what  he  could  do  in  comedy, 
since  his  heroique  plays  could  do  no  more  wonders." 
To  certain  of  the  dramatists,  that  is,  it  was  already 
clear  that  the  tide  had  turned. 

With  contemporary  comedy,  Pepys  was  perhaps 
more  in  sympathy.  He  describes  among  the  earliest 
comic  successes  Cowley's  satirical  Cutter  of  Coleman 
Street,  under  December  16,  1661,  and  D'Avenant's 
The  Wits,  under  August  15,  1661.  Dryden's  Sir 
Martin  Mar-all,  or  The  Feign3 d  Innocence  ( 1667) ,  he 
esteems  "the  most  entire  piece  of  mirth,  a  complete 
farce  from  one  end  to  the  other,  that  certainly  ever 


30   PEPYS  ON  THE  RESTORATION  STAGE 

i 

was  writ";  he  records  that  Secret  Love,  or  The 
Maiden  Queen  is  "mightily  commended  for  the  regu- 
larity of  it,  and  the  strain  and  wit,"  though  its  success 
was  doubtless  due  in  a  measure  to  the  "comical  part" 
of  Florimel,  done  by  Nell  Gwyn.  He  has  a  long 
notice  of  Etherege's  first  play,  The  Comical  Revenge, 
or  Love  in  a  Tub,  January  4,  1665,  which  he  calls 
"very  merry";  and  of  his  second,  She  Would  if  She 
Could,  February  6,  1668,  from  the  first  performance 
of  which  "there  was  1,000  people  put  back  that  could 
not  have  room  in  the  pit,"  and  about  which  the  audi- 
ence thought,  so  Pepys  says,  "there  was  something 
very  roguish  and  witty."  It  is  especially  interesting 
to  see  from  these  entries  in  regard  to  Etherege  the 
attitude  of  his  contemporaries  towards  this  first 
important  writer  of  Restoration  "society  comedy." 

If  it  is  true  that  we  do  not  understand  a  period 
until  we  know  its  minor  in  addition  to  its  major  writ- 
ers, we  must  acknowledge  a  still  further  debt  to 
Pepys's  journal;  for  it  has  much  to  say  of  the  lesser 
contemporary  dramatists.  The  fact  is  that  the  work 
of  mediocre  men  bulks  as  large  in  the  Diary  as  it 
usually  does  in  the  estimation  of  the  contemporary 
public.  The  plays  mentioned  by  Pepys  of  the  three 
Howards — Edward,  James,  and  Sir  Robert — of  the 
Duke  of  Newcastle,  Sir  Charles  Sedley,  Thomas 
Killigrew,  John  Lacy — the  actor, — Thomas  Porter, 
Richard  Rhodes,  Sir  Robert  Stapylton,  and  Thomas 
Shadwell — all  are  cases  in  point. 

The  most  notable  seem  to  have  owed  their  suc- 
cess largely  to  contemporary  allusions.  Such  was 
Edward  Howard's  The  Change  of  Crowns  (1667), 


PEPYS  AS  A  DRAMATIC  HISTORIAN          31 

in  which  John  Lacy  acted  the  part  of  the  country 
gentleman  who  had  the  effrontery  to  attack  "the 
Court  with  all  the  imaginable  wit  and  plainness  about 
selling  places,  and  doing  every  thing  for  monejr." 
The  King,  who  attended  its  first  performance,  was, 
we  are  told,  so  incensed  at  thus  being  abused  to  his 
face  that  he  ordered  the  theatre  closed  and  Lacy  im- 
prisoned. Finally,  another  actor  got  permission  to 
reopen  the  theatre  on  condition  that  this  play  should 
not  be  repeated.  Pepys  pronounced  The  Change  of 
Crowns  "bitter  indeed,  but  very  true  and  witty." 
Curiously  enough,  Sir  Robert  Howard's  The  Duke 
of  Lerma  (1668),  which,  according  to  the  Diarist, 
was  "designed  to  reproach  our  King  with  his  mis- 
tresses," did  not  arouse  similar  resentment  in  the  royal 
spectator.  Pepys  fully  expected  that  the  first  per- 
formance would  be  stopped,  but  although  the  whole 
Court  was  present,  the  play  was  allowed  to  take  its 
course,  and  fortunately  it  "ended  well,  which  salved 
all."  Other  plays,  like  Sedley's  The  Mulberry  Garden 
(1668),  drew  crowded  houses  because  of  their  author 
being  "so  reputed  a  wit";  and  still  others  because,  like 
James  Howard's  All  Mistaken  (1667),  with  its  two 
"mad  parts"  immortalized  by  Hart  and  Nell  Gwyn, 
they  provided  roles  that  suited  stage  favorites.  If  v- 
these  plays  themselves  have  not  stood  the  test  of  time, 
it  is  nevertheless  instructive  to  learn  from  Pepys  on 
what  their  popularity  in  their  own  day  rested. 

And  here  may  be  mentioned  in  passing  the  transla- 
tions and  adaptations  referred  to  in  the  Diary,  many 
from  the  Spanish,  but  most  from  the  French,  which 
flourished  on  the  Restoration  stage.  Of  the  plays 


32   PEPYS  ON  THE  RESTORATION  STAGE 

from  Pierre  Corneille,  alone,  Pepys  saw  five,  each 
performed  several  times  over, — The  Cid,  Heraclius 
("an  excellent  play,  to  my  extraordinary  content"), 
Horace,  The  Mistaken  Beauty,  and  Pompey  the 
Great.  The  Adventures  of  Five  Hours,  based  upon 
a  Spanish  play  now  ascribed  to  Antonio  Coello,  was, 
in  Pepys's  judgment,  "the  best,  for  the  variety  and 
the  most  excellent  continuance  of  the  plot  to  the  very 
end,  that  ever  I  saw,  or  think  ever  shall."  "And  the 
house,"  he  concludes,  "by  its  frequent  plaudits,  did 
show  their  sufficient  approbation." 
f  Pepys  and  his  companions  also  frequently  attended 
^puppet-shows.  Of  these  Polichinello  (the  Italian 
Punch],  mentioned  nine  times  in  all,  seems  to  have 
been  the  most  popular.  One  performance  at  least 
was  graced  by  "Young  Killigrew"  and  "a  great  many 
young  sparks."  After  seeing  The  Surprisal  at  the 
King's  theatre,  Pepys  went  one  day  "to  Polichinello, 
and  there  had  three  times  more  sport  than  at  the 
play."  Other  puppet-plays  referred  to  in  the  Diary 
are  The  Modern  History  of  Hero  and  Leander  (in 
Bartholomew  Fair,  Act  V)  ;  "the  story  of  Holo- 
f ernes";  "Patient  Grizill";  and  the  "show  of  Whit- 
tington."  Of  the  last-named,  Pepys  remarks:  "How 
that  idle  thing  do  work  upon  people  that  see  it,  and 
even  myself  too!" 

Among  the  dramatists  of  the  day,  we  read  two  or 
three  times  of  Abraham  Cowley,  who  was  at  his 
death  "mightily  lamented"  as  "the  best  poet  of  our 
nation,  and  as  a  good  man";  of  Sir  William  D'Ave- 
nant  and  his  difficulties  as  manager  of  the  Duke's 
company;  and  of  "Dryden  the  poet,"  whom  Pepys 


PEPYS  AS  A  DRAMATIC  HISTORIAN          33 

knew  at  Cambridge,  and  whom  he  saw  "at  the  great 
Coffee-house,"  where  "all  the  wits  of  the  town"  fore- 
gathered. The  Diarist  furnishes  us  with  portraits 
of  the  unpopular  Sir  Robert  Howard,  ridiculed  by 
Shadwell  in  The  Sullen  Lovers;  of  the  popular  and 
profligate  Sir  Charles  Sedley,  examples  of  whose 
witty  repartees  as  a  theatre-goer  are  carefully  set 
down;  of  Tom  Killigrew  "the  King's  Foole  or 
Jester,"  with  his  love  of  music  and  his  managerial 
ambitions,  his  "raillery"  and  his  "merry  stories." 
Thus  are  the  literary  "lions"  of  the  Restoration 
playhouse  exhibited  in  Pepys's  pages. 

The  next  chapter  will  take  up  the  conditions,  as 
Pepys  describes  them,  under  which  plays  were  pro- 
duced by  D'Avenant  and  Killigrew,  and  the  informa- 
tion which  the  Diary  gives  us  on  the  general  subject 
of  the  Restoration  theatre. 


Ill 

PEPYS  AND  THE  RESTORATION 
THEATRE 


Ill 

PEPYS  AND  THE  RESTORATION 
THEATRE 

Historically,  the  decade  covered  by  Pepys's  Diary 
is  one  of  the  most  important  in  the  development  of 
the  English  theatre.  During  the  first  few  years  after 
the  Restoration,  improvements  were  introduced  that 
took  from  the  stage  its  essentially  Elizabethan  aspect 
and  gave  it  those  general  features  by  which  it  is 
known  today.  From  this  standpoint,  Pepys  may  be 
said  to  have  witnessed  the  virtual  modernization  of 
the  English  theatre.  To  be  sure,  the  stage  itself, 
as  in  the  pre-Restoration  period,  still  projected  in 
the  shape  of  a  platform  into  the  pit.  But  on  account 
of  the  regular  employment  of  actresses  for  the 
women's  parts,  the  general  use  of  movable  scenery, 
the  elaboration  of  costumes  and  mechanical  devices, 
the  illumination  of  the  stage  by  chandeliers  of  can- 
dles, and  the  cutting  off  of  the  front  of  the  stage  at 
the  proscenium  by  flats  or  curtains,  the  Restorations 
theatre  resembles  that  of  our  own  day  more  closely 
than  that  of  Shakespeare's.  The  placing  in  front  of 
the  pit  of  a  regular  band  of  musicians,  with  the  grow- 
ing tendency  towards  more  ambitious  music  both 
during  and  between  the  acts,  also  contributed  to 
"this  transformation,"  as  Professor  Thorndike  has 
called  it,  "from  a  half -medieval  to  a  nearly  modern 


38   PEPYS  ON  THE  RESTORATION  STAGE 

stage."1  As  for  the  auditorium  of  the  Restoration 
playhouse,  its  plan  was  in  general  similar  to  that  of 
the  typical  London  theatre  of  the  present  time. 
There  was  the  pit — somewhat  curtailed,  to  be  sure, 
by  the  protrusion  of  the  stage;  above  it  the  first  tier 
of  boxes  with  the  King's  box  occupying  the  centre; 
then  the  so-called  "middle  gallery"  with  a  few  boxes 
also,  perhaps,  in  the  centre ;  and  finally  above  that  the 
shilling  gallery  with  benches  for  the  poorer  class  of 
playgoers. 

On  nearly  every  one  of  the  essential  features  of 
the  contemporary  theatre,  Pepys  touches  at  some 
point  in  his  record.  Thus  from  the  pages  of  the 
Diary,  it  is  possible  to  reconstruct  in  their  main  out- 
lines the  important  playhouses  of  the  period  as  well 
as  the  productions  that  took  place  in  them. 

The  first  time  that  Pepys  refers  to  the  perform- 
ance of  a  play  is  on  June  6,  1660;  he  is  still  on  board 
The  Charles — the  ship  which  had  just  brought  over 
the  King  and  was  lying  off  Dover — when  he  hears  in 
a  letter  from  London  that  "The  two  Dukes  [York 
and  Gloucester]  do  haunt  the  Park  much,  and  that 
they  were  at  a  play,  Madame  Epicene,  the  other 
day."  It  is  not  clear  where  this  performance  of 
Jonson's  comedy  was  given — perhaps  at  the  Red 
Bull  where  the  company  of  "old  actors,"  to  whose 
repertory  it  belonged,  was  then  playing.  On  Novem- 
ber 8  of  this  year,  a  company  containing  recruits  from 
the  Red  Bull  removed  to  a  theatre  in  Vere  Street, 
Clare  Market,  where  in  all  probability  Pepys  saw  the 

1  A.  H.  Thorndike,  Tragedy,  p.  244. 


PEPYS  AND  THE  RESTORATION  THEATRE   39 

same  play  on  December  4.  The  Diarist's  statements 
throw  much  light  upon  the  early  history  of  the 
theatres  opened  immediately  before  the  Restoration. 
Besides  the  Red  Bull  in  St.  John's  Street,  there  is 
valuable  information  about  the  Cockpit  in  Drury 
Lane,  and  the  rebuilt  Salisbury  Court  theatre,  White- 
friars — as  well  as  about  the  companies  of  actors  that 
gathered  in  them — though  not  enough  to  solve  satis- 
factorily all  the  problems  connected  with  these  sub- 
jects. After  the  Royal  grant  of  August  21,  1660,  to 
Thomas  Killigrew  and  Sir  William  D'Avenant  of 
"full  power  and  authority  to  Erect  two  Companies  of 
Players"  and  the  consequent  formation  of  "the 
King's  company"  by  Killigrew,  and  of  "the  Duke 
of  York's"  by  D'Avenant — the  comments  upon  them 
are  more  frequent.  Thereafter  the  reader  may  follow 
somewhat  closely  their  movements  until  they  were 
established  in  the  quarters  they  were  to  occupy 
throughout  the  period  covered  by  the  remainder  of 
the  Diary — the  King's  players  in  the  Royal  theatre, 
Drury  Lane,  the  Duke's  in  the  "Opera"  in  Portu- 
gal Street,  Lincoln's  Inn  Fields. 

Pepys  also  adds  substantially  to  our  knowledge  of 
the  Royal  private  theatre  in  Whitehall  Palace.  As 
this  is  a  subject  which  has  been  generally  passed  over 
by  stage  historians,  it  is  important  to  summarize  the 
information  he  supplies.  On  November  20,  1660, 
he  refers  to  the  Cockpit,  Whitehall,  which  stood, 
according  to  Edgar  Sheppard,  author  of  The  Old 
Royal  Palace  of  Whitehall,  on  the  site  "now  occupied 
by  the  Privy  Council  Office."  Pepys  saw  several 
plays  acted  here  by  both  the  Duke's  and  the  King's 


40   PEPYS  ON  THE  RESTORATION  STAGE 

companies,  who,  since  the  performances  at  the  public 
theatres  were  in  the  afternoon,  were  free  to  appear 
at  Court  in  the  evening.  He  mentions  this  Cockpit 
for  the  last  time  by  name  on  January  5,  1663. 
On  February  23,  1663,  and  October  17,  1664,  he 
speaks  of  plays  given  "at  Court,"  without  indicating 
definitely  the  place  of  performance.  On  April  20, 
1665,  he  remarks:  "I  am  told  the  first  play  is  played 
in  Whitehall  noon-hall,  which  is  now  turned  to  a 
house  of  playing" ;  and  in  his  next  entry  on  the  Court 
plays,  which  is  in  1666,  after  the  great  plague,  he 
says:  "To  Whitehall  and  into  the  new  playhouse 
there,  and  the  first  time  I  was  ever  there."  From 
these  references,  it  is  clear  that  the  "theatre-room" 
in  the  palace  was  moved  about.  Sheppard  has  noth- 
ing to  say  on  the  subject  except  that  the  location  of 
the  "noon-hall"  (which  seems  to  be  the  "new  play- 
house" Pepys  mentions)  is  not  known.  H.  B. 
Wheatley,  in  his  London,  Past  and  Present,  asserts 
that  "Charles  built  a  new  playhouse  at  Whitehall  to 
which  Pepys  went."  From  this  evidence,  we  may  at 
least  infer  that  the  Court  plays  were  given  in  the 
Cockpit  adjoining  the  old  palace  (not  to  be  confused 
with  the  Cockpit  in  Drury  Lane)  for  the  first  three 
or  four  years  of  Charles  the  Second's  reign,  and  also 
that  from  1665  on  they  were  probably  given  in  what 
ad  previously  been  known  as  the  "noon-hall." 

Pepys  first  saw  professional  actresses  at  the  King's 
theatre,  Vere  Street,  on  January  3,  1661,  soon  after 
the  initial  appearance  of  women  on  the  English  stage, 
if  we  except  a  few  sporadic  pre-Restoration  per- 
formances. "To  the  Theatre,"  he  records  of  the 


" 


PEPYS  AND  THE  RESTORATION  THEATRE   41 

performance  of  this  date,  "where  was  acted  'Beggar's 
Bush,'  it  being  very  well  done ;  and  here  the  first  time  L- 
that  ever  I  saw  women  come  upon  the  stage."    That 
their  advent  was  not  wholly  pleasing  to  the  actors  of 
this  company  is  suggested  in  the  following  reference 
in  their  petition  of  October  13,  1660,  addressed  to 
Sir  Henry  Herbert.     Killigrew,  they  assert,  "sup- 
prest  us  untill  we  had  by  covenant  obleiged  ourselves 
to  Act  with  Woemen."    Boys,  however,  still  appeared 
in  female  roles  in  the  same  company,  as  we  learn  from  IS 
the  Diarist's   entry   for   January   7,   which   praises 
Edward  Kynaston's  acting  of  Epicoene  in  Jonson's 
Silent  Woman.     The  second  time  Pepys  mentions 
seeing  women  on  the  stage,  which  was  on  January  8 — 
again   at   the    King's   theatre — the   play   was    The 
Widow,  and  his  pleasure  in  it  was  lessened  because 
the  women  were  "to  seek  in  their  parts."    But  after  / 
his  third  experience,  February  12,  he  thought  the  I 
acting  of  a  woman,  in  The  Scornful  Lady,  made  "the 
play  appear  much  better  than  ever  it  did  to  me." 
Some  five  years  later  in  an  account  of  The  English 
Monsieur,  his  chief  praise  is  reserved  for  the  actresses 
who  performed  in  it — "the  women,"  he  concludes,  i/ 
"doing  better  than  ever  I  expected,  and  very  fine 


women." 


Unfortunately,  Pepys  does  not  furnish  us  with 
a  clue  to  the  name  of  the  first  English  profes- 
sional actress  to  take  a  speaking  part ;  but  through  his 
descriptions,  we  become  more  or  less  intimately  ac- 
quainted with  the  principal  actresses  of  both  the 
Duke's  and  the  King's  companies,  who  were  soon 
afterward  employed.  Among  these  were  Mrs.  Corey, 


42   PEPYS  ON  THE  RESTORATION  STAGE 

Mrs.  Betterton,  the  two  Davenports,  "Moll"  Davis, 
Gosnell  (who  is  not  known  outside  the  Diary),  the 
famous  Nell  Gwyn,  Mrs.  Knepp  (of  whom  little  is 
otherwise  known),  the  Marshall  sisters,  and  Mrs. 
Norton. 

It  was  Mrs.  Corey,  or  "Doll  Common" — as  Pepys 
calls  her  from  her  part  in  Jonson's  Alchemist — who 
deeply  offended  Lady  Harvey  by  her  "acting  of 
Sempronia  in  'Catiline'  to  imitate  her."  "For  which," 
continues  Pepys,  "she  got  my  Lord  Chamberlain, 
her  kinsman,  to  imprison  Doll:  when  my  Lady 
Castlemayne  made  the  King  to  release  her,  and  to 
order  her  to  act  it  again,  worse  than  ever,  the  other 
day,  where  the  King  himself  was:  and  since  it  was 
acted  again,  and  my  Lady  Harvy  provided  people  to 
hiss  her  and  fling  oranges  at  her."  As  for  the  sequel, 
we  are  told  that  there  were  "real  troubles  at  Court 
about  it." 

Mary  Saunderson,  who  became  in  1662  the  wife  of 
Betterton — prince  of  Restoration  actors — is  almost 
invariably  mentioned  in  the  same  breath  with  her 
husband  in  terms  of  the  highest  praise.  She  first 
appears  in  the  Diary  in  an  account  of  a  performance 
of  Massinger's  The  Bondman,  as  "acting  Cleora's 
part  very  well  now  Roxalana  is  gone."  The  original 
Roxalana  was  Elizabeth  Davenport,  whose  imper- 
sonation of  this  role  in  the  famous  production  of 
The  Siege  of  Rhodes,  lingered  in  Pepys's  memory 
long  after  the  impersonator  had  been  "by  force  of 
love,"  as  Downes  says,  "crept  the  stage."  Of  Moll 
Davis,  "the  pretty  girle  that  sang  and  danced  so  well 
at  the  Duke's  house,"  and  "pretty  witty  Nell  at  the 


PEPYS  AND  THE  RESTORATION  THEATRE   43 

King's  house,"  there  is  abundant  gossip.  Pepys 
gives  us  glimpses  of  the  latter  off  the  stage  as  well 
as  on  it — "standing  at  her  lodgings'  door  in  Drury- 
Lane  in  her  smock  sleeves  and  bodice,"  and  also  in 
the  "women's  shift  where  Nell  was  dressing  herself, 
and  was  all  unready,  and  is  very  pretty,  prettier  than 
I  thought."  Her  own  opinion  of  her  abilities  as  an 
actress  seems  largely  to  have  been  shared  by  the 
Diarist.  He  asserts,  apropos  of  her  spoiling  the 
part  of  Samira  in  The  Surprised  and  then  two  days 
later  playing  to  perfection  Mirida  in  The  Mad 
Couple,  that  it  is  a  miracle  to  him  "to  think  how  ill 
she  do  any  serious  part,  as,  the  other  day,  just  like 
a  fool  or  changeling;  and,  in  a  mad  part,  do  beyond 
all  imitation  almost."  But  pretty,  "mad-humoured" 
Mrs.  Knepp,  whom  Killigrew,  her  manager,  thought 
"like  to  make  the  best  actor  that  ever  come  upon  the 
stage,"  figures  even  more  often  in  these  gossipy  pages 
in  her  double  capacity  of  successful  actress  and  inti- 
mate friend. 

Pepys's  accounts  of  the  visits  back  and  forth  be- 
tween the  audience  and  the  women  players  suggest 
that  the  but  recently  initiated  actresses  felt  themselves  I 
from  the  first  at  home  both  on  the  stage  and  in  the  pit. ; 
The  "gallants"  and  the  women  of  the  company  were 
upon  a  most  informal  footing.  On  one  occasion,  Mrs. 
Knepp  took  the  Diarist  after  a  play  up  into  "the 
tireing-rooms"  at  the  King's  theatre,  where  he  pro- 
ceeded to  hear  Knepp  say  "all  her  part  of  Flora's 
Figarys";  another  time,  she  spied  him  "out  of  the 
tiring-room  and  come  to  the  pit  door."  Again,  Pepys 
records  that  Knepp  "come,  after  her  song  in  the 


44   PEPYS  ON  THE  RESTORATION  STAGE 

clouds,  to  me  in  the  pit."  And  at  all  times,  "Orange 
Moll/'  the  head  orange-girl,  acted  as  a  go-between 
for  the  men  in  the  auditorium  and  the  actresses  on  the 
stage. 

Pepys  also  testifies  that  the  managers  of  the  Res- 
toration theatres  soon  learned  to  exploit  the  women 
of  their  companies  in  ways  calculated  to  add  a  new 
zest  to  playgoing  for  the  vulgar-minded.  As  early 
as  October  28,  1661,  we  read  of  a  woman  who  "acted 
Parthenia"  in  Ar gains  and  Parthenia,  and  "came 
afterwards  on  the  stage  in  men's  clothes" — probably 
to  recite  a  coarse  epilogue.  And  on  October  4,  1664, 
Pepys  hears  of  Killigrew's  The  Parson's  Wedding, 
which  he  calls  a  "bawdy  loose  play,"  about  to  be 
"acted  all  by  women." 

To  turn  from  the  women  to  the  men  of  the  com- 
panies— by  the  end  of  February,  1661,  hardly  two 
years  after  the  reopening  of  the  theatres,  we  find 
Pepys  already  observing  that  "the  gallants  do  begin 
to  be  tyred  with  the  vanity  and  pride  of  the  theatre 
actors  who  are  indeed  grown  very  proud  and  rich." 
How  difficult  they  were  to  deal  with  appears  from  the 
following  story.  Under  July  22,  1663,  we  read  of 
the  versatile  comedian,  Henry  Harris,  a  member  of 
D'Avenant's  company:  "He  demanded  £20  for  him- 
self extraordinary,  more  than  Betterton  or  anybody 
else,  upon  every  new  play,  and  <£lO  upon  every  re- 
vive ;  which  with  other  things  Sir  W.  Davenant  would 
not  give  him,  and  so  he  swore  he  would  never  act 
there  more  in  expectation  of  being  received  in  the 
other  House;  but  the  King  will  not  suffer  it."  Fin- 
ally, as  Pepys  tells  us  on  December  10,  Harris  was 


PEPYS  AND  THE  RESTORATION  THEATRE   45 

forced  to  go  back  to  his  old  place.  But  it  was  doubt- 
less as  much  the  fault  of  the  public  as  his  own  that 
he  was  thus  spoiled,  to  judge  by  an  entry  for  April 
29,  1668:  "After  the  play  done,  I  stepped  up  to 
Harris's  dressing-room,  where  I  never  was,  and  there 
I  observe  much  company  come  to  him,  and  the  Witts, 
to  talk,  after  the  play  is  done,  and  to  assign  meet- 
ings." 

Another  crisis  arose  when  the  popular  comedian 
Lacy  insulted  Edward  Howard — for  acting  in  whose 
play  he  had  been  thrown  into  prison — telling 
him  "he  was  more  a  fool  than  a  poet,"  and  giving 
him  "a  blow  over  the  pate."  An  artist  like  Better-^ 
ton,  who  was  always  dignified,  and  was  universally  \ 
respected  and  admired,  lived  apparently  in  peace  and 
quiet.  But  there  were  other  more  turbulent  spirits 
who  not  infrequently  became  involved  in  quarrels 
that  necessitated  the  temporary  closing  of  their  play- 
houses. That  the  actors  did  not  always  triumph  over 
their  opponents,  we  may  infer  from  the  fact  that 
after  Kynaston  had  taken  a  part  in  a  play  called 
The  Heiress  "in  abuse  to  Sir  Charles  Sedley,"  he 
was  "exceedingly  beaten  with  sticks  by  two  or  three 
that  assaulted  him."  The  Diarist  also  records  a 
sinister-sounding  threat  made  by  Sir  William  Cov- 
entry, when  it  was  rumored  that  he  was  to  be  mim- 
icked on  the  stage.  He  immediately  "told  Killigrew 
that  he  should  tell  his  actors  whoever  they  were,  that 
offer  any  thing  like  representing  him  .  .  .  that  he 
would  cause  his  nose  to  be  cut." 

Of  all  the  actors  mentioned  in  the  Diary,  Thomas 
Betterton  of  the  Duke's  company  seems  most  to  have 


46       PEPYS  ON  THE  RESTORATION  STAGE 

impressed  Pepys,  and  in  no  role  so  much  as  in  Ham- 
let. "Betterton  did  the  prince's  part  beyond  imagina- 
tion" is  a  typical  comment.  Next  to  him  stands 
^  Henry  Harris  in  the  estimation  of  the  Diarist,  who 
knew  him  personally  perhaps  better  than  any  of  the 
others.  Besides  inviting  him  frequently  to  his  house, 
Pepys  had  his  portrait  painted  as  Henry  V  in 
Orrery's  play  of  that  name.  Not  only  did  he  admire 
Harris's  acting,  but  again  and  again  he  praises  his 
intelligence,  his  wit,  and  his  personal  charm.  "I  do 
not  know  another  better  qualified  for  converse,"  we 
read,  "whether  in  things  of  his  own  trade,  or  of  other 
kinds,  a  man  of  great  understanding  and  observation 
and  very  agreeable  in  the  manner  of  his  discourse, 
and  civil  as  far  as  is  possible."  Of  the  actors  in  the 
King's  company  (which,  on  the  whole,  is  not  rated 
as  high  as  its  rival)  we  hear  most  about  the  versatile 
John  Lacy.  Lacy  seems  to  have  excelled  in  "char- 
acter parts"  such  as  a  rustic  "clown"  in  Love  in  a 
Maze  and  the  "country-gentleman  come  up  to  Court" 
in  The  Change  of  Crowns.  He  appears  also  to  have 
had  a  special  gift  for  portraying  national  character- 
istics, for  we  read  of  his  taking  such  diverse  parts  as 
"the  French  Dancing  Master,"  an  "Irish  footman," 
and  "Sawney  the  Scot."  How  much  French  and 
Irish  he  managed  to  speak  is  not  told,  but  we  know 
that  he  at  least  attempted  Scotch,  since  as  Sawney 
he  succeeded  in  making  himself  quite  unintelligible 
to  Pepys.  Edward  Kynaston,  of  the  King's  com- 
pany, also  frequently  receives  honorable  mention. 
He  was  one  of  the  last  of  the  "boy-actresses,"  and 
immediately  after  the  Restoration  Pepys  twice 


PEPYS  AND  THE  RESTORATION  THEATRE   47 

praises  him  in  women's  parts.  As  Olympia  in  The 
Loyal  Subject,  he  made — so  the  Diarist  assures  us — 
"the  loveliest  lady  that  ever  I  saw  in  my  life,  only  her 
voice  not  very  good."  As  Epicoene  in  The  Silent 
Woman,  he  was  "clearly  the  prettiest  woman  in  the 
whole  house." 

Several  times  Pepys  speaks  of  children  on  the 
stage,  but  does  not  give  their  names.  In  The  Slighted 
Maid,  he  saw  a  little  girl  dance  in  boy's  apparel ;  and 
in  The  Sullen  Lovers  "a  little  boy,  for  a  farce,  do 
dance  Polichinelli  the  best  that  ever  anything  was 
done  in  this  world."  During  the  performance  of 
All  Mistaken,  or  The  Mad  Couple  occurred  an  inci- 
dent which  must  have  been  as  embarrassing  to  Nell 
Gwyn  and  the  rest  of  the  company  as  it  was  enter- 
taining to  the  Diarist.  "It  pleased  us  mightily,"  he 
writes,  "to  see  the  natural  affection  of  a  poor  woman, 
the  mother  of  one  of  the  children  brought  on  the 
stage:  the  child  crying,  she  by  force  got  upon  the 
stage,  and  took  up  her  child  and  carried  it  away." 

Pepys  usually  notices  the  staging  of  plays,  if  there 
is  anything  novel  or  interesting  about  it.  During 
the  first  two  or  three  years  after  the  Restoration, 
when  movable  scenery  was  practically  an  innovation 
in  the  London  theatres  for  regular  productions,  the 
Diarist  often  puts  down  the  mere  presence  of  scenes 
as  a  noteworthy  fact.  The  historically  important  set- 
ting for  D'Avenant's  Siege  of  Rhodes,  Part  II,  which 
he  saw  on  July  2,  1661,  at  the  new  "Opera"  in  Lin- 
coln's Inn  Fields,  he  describes  as  "very  fine  and  mag- 
nificent." On  August  15  he  attended  a  performance, 
also  at  this  theatre,  of  The  Wits,  "never  acted  yet 


48   PEPYS  ON  THE  RESTORATION  STAGE 

with  scenes" ;  and  there,  on  the  twenty- fourth  of  this 
month,  a  performance  of  Hamlet,  "done  with  scenes 
very  well."  Only  in  commenting  upon  Henry  Fill 
among  .the  other  plays  of  Shakespeare  which  were 
revived  at  this  time  with  elaborate  settings,  does 
Pepys  mention  the  scenery,  in  two  of  them  his  atten- 
tion being  taken  up  by  the  music.  But  he,  was 
"mightily  pleased"  with  the  "shows"  of  Henry  VIII. 
He  admired  in  Jonson's  Catiline  the  scene  "of  the 
Senate,"  and  in  Fletcher's  Island  Princess,  the  "good 
scene  of  a  town  on  fire."  He  listened,  with  great 
interest  in  August,  1664,  to  the  ambitious  plan  which 
Thomas  Killigrew  divulged  to  him  for  a  new  theatre 
which  was  to  "have  the  best  scenes  and  machines,  the 
best  musique,  and  every  thing  as  magnificent  as  is  in 
Christendome;  and  to  that  end  hath  sent  for  vpices 
and  painters  and  other  persons  from  Italy."  But 
the  contemporary  interest  in  this  side  of  theatrical 
production  may  perhaps  best  be  gauged  from  the 
Diarist's  entry  for  June  13,  1663,  after  he  had  seen 
The  Faithful  Shepherdess,  which  he  says  was  "much 
thronged  after,  and  often  shown,  but  it  is  only  for 
the  scene's  sake,  which  is  very  fine  indeed  and  worth 
seeing."  In  spite  of  these  ambitious  efforts  of 
D'Avenant  and  Killigrew,  Restoration  scenery  was, 
of  course,  artistically  crude,  and  it  is  therefore  not 
surprising  that  distance  should  have  lent  it  enchant- 
ment. When  forced  to  sit  in  an  "upper  box,"  Pepys 
observes  with  some  interest,  that  "from  this  place  the 
scenes  do  appear  very  fine  indeed,  and  much  better 
than  in  the  pit." 

One  day  in  1666,  when  the  theatres  were  closed  on 


PEPYS  AND  THE  RESTORATION  THEATRE   49 

account  of  the  great  fire,  which  followed  on  the  heels 
of  the  great  plague,  Pepys  consoled  himself  by  going 
behind  the  scenes  at  the  King's  playhouse  and  view- 
ing at  close  range  the  stage  properties.  There  he  saw 
the  "machines,"  the  "paintings,"  and  various  other 
appurtenances — "here  a  wooden  leg,  there  a  ruff, 
here  a  hobby-horse,  there  a  crown,  would  make  a  man 
split  himself  to  see  with  laughing."  But  the  actors 
at  this  time  did  not  always  have  to  ride  hobby-horses ; 
in  Shirley's  Hyde  Park,  at  the  King's  theatre,  Pepys 
saw  real  horses  brought  on  the  stage. 

As  for  costumes,  the  Diarist  particularly  com- 
mends the  richness  of  those  in  The  Tempest,  and  in 
Catiline;  for  the  latter  play,  he  notes  that  the  King 
was  to  give  five  hundred  pounds,  and  that  there  were 
to  be  "sixteen  scarlett  robes."  But  when  he  visits  the 
tiring-rooms  at  the  Royal  theatre,  and  sees  there  , 
"Lacy's  wardrobe  and  Shotrell's,"  he  is  amazed  "to 
think  how  fine  they  show  on  the  stage  by  candlelight 
and  how  poor  things  they  are  to  look  now."  It  has 
been  said  that  "such  costumes  as  Pepys  saw  made  no 
pretension  whatever  to  historical  accuracy."  Of 
course,  the  point  of  view  towards  historical  accuracy 
is  shifting  ground,  and  "the  garments"  Pepys 
thought  "like  Romans  very  well"  would  probably  not . 
satisfy  a  modern  theatre-goer's  sense  of  archaeologi- 
cal fitness.  But  pretension  to  historical  accuracy 
there  certainly  was  when  the  Diary  was  written.  To 
substantiate  this  it  is  only  necessary  to  quote  further 
from  the  account  of  the  performance  of  March  8, 
1664,  in  which  the  "Romans"  appeared  (the  play  -  ,  , 
was  a  translation  of  Corneille's  Heraclius) :  "At  the 


50       PEPYS  ON  THE  RESTORATION  STAGE 

drawing  up  of  the  curtaine,  there  was  the  finest  scene 
of  the  Emperor  and  his  people  about  him,  standing  in 
their  fixed  and  different  postures  in  their  Roman 
habitts,  above  all  that  ever  I  yet  saw  at  any  of  the 
theatres."  And  we  read  in  the  description  of  a  piece 
called  Queen  Elizabeth's  Troubles  that  it  "shews  the 
true  garbe  of  the  Queen  in  those  days  just  as  we  see 
Queen  Mary  and  Queen  Elizabeth  painted." 

But  Pepys  was  probably  more  genuinely  inter- 
ested in  the  music  than  in  the  costuming  of  plays. 
"That  which  di3~pTease  me  beyond  anything  in  the 
whole  world,"  he  writes  after  seeing  The  Virgin 
Martyr  at  the  King's  theatre,  "was  the  wind  musique 
when  the  angel  comes  down,  which  is  so  sweet  that  it 
ravished  me."  He  often  comments  on  the  rendering 
of  the  songs,  which  were  as  frequent  a  feature  of 
Restoration  performances  as  the  dances,  and  he  was 
enough  of  a  musician  to  write  his  own  score  for  one 
of  them,  "Beauty  Retire,"  from  The  Siege  of  Rhodes. 
When  the  theatre  in  Drury  Lane  was  opened,  in 
1663,  Pepys  remarks  on  the  new  arrangement  of 

/  having  the  music  down  in  front  of  the  pit  instead  of 
up  in  a  gallery.  But  at  first  at  least,  this  did  not  seem 

*  to  work  well.  "The  musique  being  below,"  he  says, 
"and  most  of  it  sounding  under  the  very  stage,  there 
is  no  hearing  of  the  bases  at  all,  nor  very  well,  of  the 
trebles,  which  sure  must  be  mended."  Apparently 
D'Avenant  did  not  adopt  this  arrangement,  for  as 
late  as  1669  Pepys  refers  to  "the  side  balcony"  at  the 
Duke's  theatre  "over  against  the  musick." 

About  the  musicians,  we  learn  from  various  entries 
that  the  most  popular  of  them  were  foreigners. 


PEPYS  AND  THE  RESTORATION  THEATRE   51 

Thomas  Killigrew,  who  was  so  fond  of  music  that 
he  had  been  several  times  to  Rome  to  hear  it,  led  the 
way  in  importing  them.  He  once  told  Pepys  that 
before  his  time  "  'Hermitt  poore'  and  'Chevy  Chese' 
was  all  the  musique  we  had;  and  yet  no  ordinary  fid- 
dlers get  so  much  money  as  ours  do  here,  which  speaks 
our  rudenesse  still."  In  his  effort  to  improve  this  state 
of  things,  he  had  "gathered  our  Italians  from  several 
Courts  in  Christendome,  to  come  to  make  a  concert 
for  the  King."  According  to  his  own  account,  the 
orchestra  in  his  theatre  contained  "nine  or  ten, of  the 
best"  fiddlers;  while  from  Pepys's  remarks  on  Killi- 
grew's  production  of  The  Virgin  Martyr,  we  infer 
that  it  also  contained  wind  instruments.  It  appears 
from  the  Diary — as  well  as  from  other  sources — that 
Sir  William  D'Avenant  did  his  full  share  in  his 
operatic  productions  towards  bettering  the  music  in 
the  Restoration  theatre. 

As  Pepys  pictures  the  stage  to  us,  so  too  he  pic- 
tures the  audjtoriunLof  the  contemporary  playhouse, 
peopling  pit  and  gallery  with  the  quaintly  interesting 
figures  of  the  day.  Especially  does  he  rejoice  in  the 
presence  of  "all  the  great  ladies  of  the  Court."  "The 
sight  of  the  ladies,  indeed,"  he  remarks  of  a  particular 
audience,  "was  exceedingly  noble."  When  it  is  "full 
of  citizens,"  the  theatre  does  not  please  him  as  much 
as  it  does  when  it  is  "full  of  gallants."  He  takes 
solid  satisfaction  when  there  are  "many  fine  faces" 
in  the  pit,  and  is  somewhat  disturbed  when  he  notices, 
as  on  January  1,  1668,  at  the  Duke's  playhouse,  "that 
when  I  begun  first  to  be  able  to  bestow  a  play  on 
myself,  I  do  not  remember  that  I  saw  so  many  by 


52   PEPYS  ON  THE  RESTORATION  STAGE 

half  of  the  ordinary  'prentices  and  mean  people  in  the 
pit  at  2s.  6d.  a-piece  as  now ;  I  going  for  several  years 
no  higher  than  12<#.  .  .  .  places,  though  I  strained 
hard  to  go  in  them  when  I  did :  so  much  the  vanity  and 
prodigality  of  the  age  is  to  be  observed  in  this  partic- 
ular." In  view  of  the  relations  of  Charles  the  Sec- 
ond's Court  with  the  Continent,  it  is  not  surprising 
to  read  that  Pepys's  box  at  the  theatre  was  once 
invaded  by  a  company  of  Frenchmen  who  could 
understand  no  English  and  were  forced  to  depend 
on  "a  pretty  lady  that  they  got  among  them"  for 
a  translation  of  the  play. 

/"  The  subject  of  dress  at  the  theatre  is  also  intro- 
(  duced.     On  May  8,  1663,  Pepys  goes  home  "a  little 
ashamed  that  my  wife  and  woman  were  in  such  a 
\    pickle,  all  the  ladies  being  finer  and  better  dressed  in 
\  the  pitt  than  they  used"  to  be.    About  a  month  after- 
ward, he  and  his  wife  notice  at  a  play  that  Lady  Mary 
Cromwell  put  on  her  vizard  "when  the  House  began 
to  fill,"  and  "so  kept  it  on  all  the  play;  which  of  late 
is  become  a  great  fashion  among  the  ladies,  which 
hides  their  whole  face" ;  whereupon  nothing  would  do 
but  immediately  afterward  they  should  go,  as  Pepys 
adds,  "to  the  Exchange  to  buy  things  .   .    .  with  my 
wife;  among  others  a  vizard  for  herself."     To  what 
unfortunate  consequences  the  revival  of  this  custom 
of  mask-wearing  led,  the  Diarist  suggests  in  an  ac- 
count of  an  experience  at  the  King's  theatre  during 
a  performance  of  The  Maid's  Tragedy;  here  he  sat 
behind  "two  talking  ladies  and  Sir  Charles  Sedley, 
...  he  being  a  stranger.     And  one  of  the  ladies 
would  and  did  sit  with  her  mask  on,  all  the  play." 


PEPYS  AND  THE  RESTORATION  THEATRE   53 

More  than  once  Pepys  records  the  fact  that  people 
in  the  audience  talked  throughout  the  play  so  loud 
that  others  were  prevented  from  understanding  it. 
On  July  22,  1667,  he  hears  of  a  fray  at  the  Duke's 
playhouse,  in  which  the  Duke  of  Buckingham  "did 
soundly  beat  [Henry  Killigrew]  and  take  away  his 
sword."  And  in  general,  the  behavior  of  Restoration 
playgoers  appears  to  have  been  most  informal.  Once, 
he  says,  when  I  was  sitting  "in  a  dark  place,  a  lady 
spit  backward  upon  me  by  a  mistake,  not  seeing  me, 
but  after  seeing  her  to  be  a  very  pretty  lady,  I  was  not 
troubled  at  it  at  all."  Yet  another  time  at  the  pri- 
vate theatre  in  Whitehall  Palace,  Pepys  thought  the 
Duke  of  York  and  his  Duchess  overstepped  the 
mark  in  informality — they  "did  show,"  he  says,  "some 
impertinent,  and,  methought,  unnatural  dalliances 
there,  before  the  whole  world,  such  as  kissing,  and 
leaning  upon  one  another." 

Apparently  the  Diarist  never  missed  seeing  the 
distinguished  people-in  the  theatre,  and  he  somehow 
managed  to  watch  them  and  the  play  at  the  same 
time.  He  was  always  interested  in  the  effect  pro- 
duced by  the  play  upon  prominent  spectators.  "The 
King  I  did  not  see  laugh,"  he  notes  with  evident  sur- 
prise at  the  first  performance  of  the  much-heralded 
Mulberry  Garden  by  Sir  Charles  Sedley,  "nor 
pleased  the  .whole  play  from  beginning  to  end,  nor  the 
company."  And  again — this  time  at  The  Valiant 
Cid — "Nor  did  the  King  or  Queen  once  smile  all  the 
whole  play,  nor  any  of  the  company  seem  to  take  any 
pleasure  but  what  was  in  the  greatness  and  the  gal- 
lantry of  the  company." 


54   PEPYS  ON  THE  RESTORATION  STAGE 

Here  is  a  glimpse  he  gives  of  a  brilliant  audience 
gathered  at  the  Duke's  house  for  a  performance  of 
Macbeth  on  December  21,  1668:  "The  King  and 
Court  there;  and  we  sat  just  under  them  and  my 
Lady  Castlemayne,  and  close  to  the  woman  that 
comes  into  the  pit,  a  kind  of  loose  gossip,  that  pre- 
tends to  be  like  her,  and  is  so,  something.  .  .  .  The 
King  and  Duke  of  York  minded  me,  and  smiled  upon 
me,  at  the  handsome  woman  near  me:  but  it  vexed 
me  to  see  Moll  Davis,  in  the  box  over  the  King's  and 
my  Lady  Castlemayne's  head,  look  down  upon  the 
King,  and  he  up  to  her;  and  so  did  my  Lady  Castle- 
mayne once,  to  see  who  it  was,  but  when  she  saw  her, 
she  looked  fire."  Pepys  recognized  the  Queen  of 
Bohemia  at  one  performance,  "the  German  Baron 
with  his  lady  who  is  envoy e  from  the  Emperour"  at 
another,  and  at  still  anbther,  the  picturesque  Duchess 
of  Newcastle,  who  at  the  end  of  her  husband's  play, 
The  Humourous  Lovers,  "made  her  respects  to  the 
players  from  her  box." 

When  a  new  piece  was  on,  the  audience  was  sure  to 
be  a  distinguished  one,  and  the  theatre  was  usually 
crowded.  But  there  was  this  drawback  about  first 
days  at  the  playhouse,  that  the  would-be  spectator 
must  needs  go  hours  beforehand  to  get  a  seat.  Al- 
though at  that  time  the  plays  at  the  public  theatres 
did  not  begin  before  three  or  half  past  three  in  the 
afternoon,  Pepys  found  on  February  25,  1669,  the 
Duke  of  York's  playhouse  "infinite  full"  at  one 
o'clock  on  the  occasion  of  the  first  presentation  of 
Shadwell's  Royal  Shepherdess.  For  the  premiere  of 
another  play,  Shadwell's  The  Sullen  Lovers,  Pepys 


PEPYS  AND  THE  RESTORATION  THEATRE   55 

had  the  foresight  to  go  "at  a  little  past  twelve,  to 
get  a  good  place  in  the  pit,  against  the  new  play,  and 
there  setting  a  poor  man  to  keep  my  place,  I  out,  and 
spent  an  hour  at  Martin's,  my  bookseller's,  and  so 
back  again,  where  I  find  the  house  quite  full.  But  I 
had  my  place."  For  another  play,  however,  even 
his  arrival  at  the  theatre  before  the  doors  were 
opened  did  not  guarantee  him  first  choice  of  seats.  ^ 
"To  the  King's  playhouse,"  he  notes,  "where  the  \ 
doors  were  not  then  open,  but  presently  they  did 
open;  and  we  in,  and  find  many  people  already  come 
in,  by  private  ways,  into  the  pit,  it  being  the  first  day 
of  Sir  Charles  Sidly's  new  play,  so  long  expected, 
The  Mullberry  Guarden.'  " 

For  these  first  performances,  we  learn  from  an 
entry  about  Cowley's  Cutter  of  Coleman  Street,, 
under  December  16,  1661,  the  prices  of  seats  were 
increased — "It  being  the  first  time,  the  pay  was 
doubled,  and  so  to  save  money,  .  .  .  went  up  into 
the  gallery,  and  there  sat  and  saw  very  well."  The 
"gallery"  here  referred  to  was  the  middle  gallery 
where  the  seats  were  ordinarily  eighteen  pence. 
From  the  reference  to  a  "box  over  the  King's  and 
my  lady  Castlemayne's  head,"  in  which  the  actress 
Moll  Davis  sat  on  December  21,  1668,  we  infer  that 
this  gallery  also  contained  boxes,  which  would  seem 
from  this  reference  to  have  been  in  the  centre  rather 
than  on  the  sides.  Probably  "the  half-crown  box" 
of  Pepys's  comment  of  January  19,  1661,  was  among 
them.  Above  this  middle  gallery  in  which  Pepys 
sometimes  sat,  as  he  says,  to  hide  himself,  was  the 
"upper  gallery,"  chiefly  frequented  by  servants  and 


\ 


56       PEPYS  ON  THE  RESTORATION  STAGE 

"the  vulgar  herd,"  while  just  under  it  was  the  main 
tier  of  boxes,  including  the  King's.  Here,  too,  at 
least  in  the  Duke's  theatre,  was  the  box  set  aside  for 
the  manager  of  the  rival  company  "sufficient" — so 
runs  D'Avenant's  stipulation — "to  conteine  sixe  per- 
sons," who  had  "Liberty  to  enter  without  any  Sallery 
or  pay,  for  their  entrance."  On  October  19,  1667, 
Pepys  tells  us  that  he  paid  four  shillings  for  a  box 
seat ;  the  seats  were  sold  singly  and  this  was  the  regu- 
lar price.  But  for  the  most  part,  Pepys  sat  in  the 
pit — just  below  the  tier  of  boxes;  and  he  finds  no 
fault  with  it  except  when  the  only  seat  to  be  had  is 
"almost  out  of  sight  at  one  end  of  the  lower  forms." 
This  part  of  the  auditorium,  in  which  the  seats  were 
mere  benches  or  "forms,"  was  largely  frequented  by 
"gallants"  and  "ladies  of  quality,"  though  by  1668, 
according  to  the  Diarist,  a  good  many  "ordinary 
'prentices  and  mean  people"  could  afford  the  "2s.  6d." 
it  cost  to  sit  there. 

Restoration  playgoers  are  reported  to  have  found 
various  ways  of  getting  around  the  regular  charges. 
One  was  to  go  in  late  and  take  advantage  of  the  rule 
that  a  gentleman  could  enter  free  towards  the  end  of 
a  play  if  he  had  friends  whom  he  wished  to  meet 
afterward.  Thus  Pepys  records  on  February  11, 
1668,  "Sent  my  wife  and  Deb.  to  see  Mustapha  acted, 
.  .  .  so  to  the  Duke  of  York's  playhouse,  and  there 
saw  the  last  act  for  nothing."  Upon  another  custom 
which  led  to  even  greater  abuse,  Pepys  looked  with 
disapproval,  as  appears  from  the  following  story  told 
under  the  date  of  December  30,  1667:  "Sir  Philip 
Carteret  would  fain  have  given  me  my  going  in  to 


PEPYS  AND  THE  RESTORATION  THEATRE 

a  play;  but  yet,  when  he  come  to  the  door,  he 
had  no  money  to  pay  for  himself,  I  having  refused  to 
accept  of  it  for  myself,  but  was  fain;  and  I  perceive 
he  is  known  there,  and  do  run  upon  the  score  there 
for  plays,  which  is  a  shame." 

But  the  expense  of  an  afternoon  at  the  playhouse 
in  Charles  the  Second's  time  did  not  end  with  the 
payment  for  seats.  There  were  the  refreshments. 
Once  when  Pepys  took  a  party  of  people  to  the  thea- 
tre, he  states  that  it  cost  him  "8s.  upon  them  in 
oranges  at  6d.  a-piece."  A  sixpence  was  the  regular 
price  for  an  orange,  which  was  evidently  considered  a 
part  of  the  afternoon's  pleasure.  The  fruit  was 
peddled  by  so-called  "orange-women,"  who  stood 
in  front  of  the  pit  with  their  backs  to  the  stage  and 
"broke  jests"  with  the  men  during  the  progress  of 
the  play,  and  carried  messages  for  them  between  the 
acts.  That,  however,  they  were  not  above  black- 
mailing their  patrons  at  times  is  to  be  seen  from  one 
of  Pepys's  own  experiences.  At  the  Duke's  theatre, 
he  writes  on  May  11,  1668,  "there  happened  one 
thing  which  vexed  me,  which  is,  that  the  orange 
woman  did  come  in  the  pit,  and  challenge  me  for 
twelve  oranges,  which  she  delivered  by  my -order  at 
a  late  play,  at  night,  to  give  to  some  ladies  in  a  box, 
which  was  wholly  untrue,  but  yet  she  swore  it  to  be 
true.  But,  however,  I  did  deny  it,  and  did  not  pay 
her ;  but  for  quiet  did  buy  4s.  worth  of  oranges  of  her, 
at  §d.  a-piece."  "Orange  Moll,"  as  the  head  orange- 
woman  was  called,  was  indeed  an  important  person 
in  the  Restoration  theatre.  Of  the  various  offices 
which  we  hear  of  her  performing,  perhaps  the  most 


58   PEPYS  ON  THE  RESTORATION  STAGE 

extraordinary  is  the  following,  described  on  Novem- 
ber 2,  1667:  "A  gentleman  of  good  habit,  sitting  just 
before  us,  eating  of  some  fruit  in  the  midst  of  the 
play,  did  drop  down  as  dead,  being  choked;  but  with 
much  ado  Orange  Moll  did  thrust  her  finger  down 
his  throat,  and  brought  him  to  life  again." 

After  the  play  was  over,  one  of  the  players  came 
out  and  announced  what  the  bill  would  be  for  the 
following  day.  Thus  we  read  under  March  7,  1667: 
"Little  Mis.  Davis  did  dance  a  jig  after  the  end  of 
the  play,  and  there  telling  the  next  day's  play."  In 
this  way  and  by  the  posting  of  playbills  upon  the 
theatres  and  the  street-posts — a  custom  to  which 
Pepys  several  times  refers — plays  were  advertised  at 
this  time.  But  even  when  the  arirroTmcement  of  the 
next  performance  had  been  made,  the  audiences,  of 
which  the  Diarist  made  one,  did  not  always  leave  the 
theatre  at  once.  After  She  Would  if  She  Could  on 
February  6,  1668,  Pepys  remarks  that  "it  being  dark 
and  raining"  he  and  the  rest  of  the  spectators  stayed 
at  the  Duke's  theatre  an  hour  and  a  half  "till  the  rain 
was  over,  and  to  talk." 

The  Diary  leaves  no  room  for  doubt  that  Pepys 
made  good  use  of  his  ample  opportunities  to  famil- 
iarize himself  with  the  details  of  the  playhouses  he 
frequented.  We  have  seen  that  he  knew  from  expe- 
rience the  advantages  and  disadvantages  of  every 
part  of  the  auditorium,  and  that  he  had  inspected 
"the  inside  of  the  stage  and  all  the  tiring-rooms  and 
machines."  At  the  King's  theatre  he  was  once 
ushered  into  the  "women's  shift."  From  here  he 
walked  "all  up  and  down  the  house  above,  and  then 


PEPYS  AND  THE  RESTORATION  THEATRE   59 

below  into  the  scene-room."  The  intimate  knowledge 
thus  gained  gives  a  certain  weight  to  his  criticisms 
of  the  various  houses.  In  one  theatre — that  in  White- 
hall Palace — he  was  annoyed  by  the  poor  acoustics. 
"The  House,"  he  says,  "though  very  fine,  yet  bad  for 
the  voice,  for  hearing."  Hence  it  is  not  surprising  to 
find  that  he  does  not  like  "a  play  so  well  here  as  at 
the  common  playhouse."  In  another,  he  is  tried  by 
the  light  of  the  candles,  set  in  loops  or  branches  which 
hung  from  the  ceiling  over  the  stage — especially  so 
when  he  sits  in  a  side  balcony,  a  bad  place  indeed  for 
the  eyes,  since  the  lights  must  have  been  about  on  a 
level  with  it  and  directly  in  front.  The  most  detailed 
criticism  which  the  Diarist  has  left  us  concerns  the 
King's  theatre  in  Drury  Lane,  built  in  1663  at  what 
was  then  considered  the  enormous  expense  of  £1500. 
"The  house,"  he  informs  us,  "is  made  with  extraor- 
dinary good  contrivance,  and  yet  hath  some  faults, 
as  the  narrowness  of  the  passages  in  and  out 
of  the  pitt,  and  the  distance  from  the  stage  to  the 
boxes,  which  I  am  confident  cannot  hear,  but  for  all 
other  things  it  is  well."  Evidently  the  stage  of  this 
theatre  proved  too  small,  for  only  three  years  later 
Pepys  found  the  interior  "all  in  dirt,  they  being  alter- 
ing of  the  stage  to  make  it  wider." 

From  the  Diary  we  learn  that  improvements  in  the 
conduct  and  construction  of  the  theatre  were  made 
between  1660  and  1670.  What  some  of  these  were 
may  be  gathered  from  an  interview  which  Pepys  had 
in  1667  with  Thomas  Killigrew,  who  contrasted  the 
King's  house  under  his  management  with  the  stage 
before  his  day.  "The  stage,"  he  tells  Pepys,  "is  by 


60   PEPYS  ON  THE  RESTORATION  STAGE 

his  pains  a  thousand  times  better  and  more  glorious" 
than  before.  "Now,  wax-candles,  and  many  of  them; 
then,  not  above  3  Ibs.  of  tallow:  now,  all  things  civil, 
no  rudeness  anywhere;  then,  as  in  a  bear-garden:  then 
two  or  three  fiddlers;  now  nine  or  ten  of  the  best: 
then,  nothing  but  rushes  upon  the  ground,  and  every- 
thing else  mean;  and  now,  all  otherwise:  then,  the 
Queen  seldom  and  the  King  never  would  come;  now 
not  the  King  only  for  state,  but  all  civil  people." 
Whether  Killigrew  was  justified  in  taking  to  himself 
the  credit  for  all  these  changes,  the  Diarist  does  not 
say.  However  that  may  be,  his  account  may  well 
stand  as  our  final  glimpse  of  the  playhouse  of  his  time. 

Thus  does  Pepys  bring  vividly  before  us  the  inte- 
rior of  the  Restoration  theatre — the  play,  the  players, 
and  the  playgoers.  Many  similar  passages  might  be 
cited  that  help  to  make  the  decade  the  Diary  covers 
stand  out  in  a  high  light  in  English  stage  history. 
But  it  is  not  the  author's  intention  to  rob  the  reader 
of  the  pleasure  of  picking  out  for  himself  all  the  most 
diverting  and  illuminating  of  the  details  from  the 
mass  that  is  presented.  Pepys's  journal  has  always 
been  a  favorite  with  those  who  delight  in  seeing  the 
people  and  events  of  a  past  age  live  again  before 
their  eyes.  And  it  is  hoped  that  in  thus  taking  out 
of  it  a  considerable  portion  dealing  with  one  of  its 
primary  topics,  little  of  its  charm  will  have  escaped 
for  such  readers,  while  much  will  have  been  gained 
for  those  more  especially  interested  in  the  stage. 
Enough  has  perhaps  been  said  to  suggest  the  value 
of  this  material  to  the  student,  and  to  indicate  how 


PEPYS  AND  THE  RESTORATION  THEATRE   61 

even  its  hastiest  comment,  its  sheerest  gossip,  serves 
today  to  enhance  our  knowledge  of  English  drama 
and  of  conditions  under  which  it  has  evolved.  In- 
deed, there  can  be  no  doubt  that  the  following  assem- 
blage of  excerpts  from  Pepys's  Diary  constitutes  a 
body  of  information  on  the  Restoration  stage  as 
significant  as  it  is  racy. 


REFERENCES    IN    PEPYS'S    DIARY    TO 
THE  RESTORATION  STAGE 

PART  ONE 


CHAPTER  I 
SHAKESPEARE'S  PLAYS 


[NOTE:  For  convenience  of  reference,  certain  works  which  must 
be  frequently  cited  in  the  notes  in  this  book  will  be  mentioned  as 
follows:  John  Downes's  Roscius  Anglicanus,  or  An  Historical 
Review  of  the  Stage  from  1660  to  1706,  Facsimile  Reprint  of 
the  Rare  Original  of  1708,  with  an  Historical  Preface  by  Joseph 
Knight,  London,  1886, — briefly,  as  "Roscius  Anglicanus";  John 
Genest's  Some  Account  of  the  English  Stage  from  the  Restora- 
tion in  1660  to  1830,  10  volumes,  Bath,  1832, — as  "Genest"; 
Gerard  Langbaine's  An  Account  of  the  English  Dramatic  Poets, 
Oxford,  1691, — as  "Langbaine,"  and  Edmond  Malone's  edition 
of  the  Plays  and  Poems  of  William  Shakspeare,  London, 
1790, — as  "Malone's  Shakspeare"  In  every  case,  the  page 
numbers  given  for  these  works  apply  to  these  editions. 

Fuller  entries  and  notes  upon  the  actors,  actresses,  play- 
wrights, and  theatres  mentioned  in  Part  I,  will  be  found  under 
special  chapters  in  Parts  II  and  III.] 


CHAPTER  I 
SHAKESPEARE'S  PLAYS 

HAMLET,  PRINCE  or  DENMARK 

August  $4,  1661.  To  the  Opera,1  and  there  saw 
*JIamlet,  Prince  of  Denmark,"2  done  with  scenes 
very  well,  but  above  all,  Betterton  did  the  prince's 
part  beyond  imagination. 

November  27,  1661.  To  the  Theatre,3  and  there 
saw  "Hamlett"  very  well  done. 

1  The  "Opera"  was  the  Duke  of  York's  theatre  in  Lincoln's 
Inn  Fields,  built  in  1660  and  managed  by  Sir  William  D'Ave- 
nant  until  his  death  in  1668. 

2  Hamlet  appears  to  have  been  performed  unaltered.     Downes 
(Roscius  Anglicanus,  p.  21)  says:  "No  succeeding  Tragedy  for 
several  Years  got  more  Reputation,  or  Money  to  the  Company 
than  this/' — "Hamlet,  being  Perform'd  by  Mr.  Betterton,  Sir 
William   [D'Avenant]    (having  seen  Mr.   Taylor  of  the  Black- 
Fryars  Company  Act  it,  who  being  Instructed  by  the  Author, 
Mr.  Shaksepeur)  taught  Mr.  Betterton  in  every  Particle  of  it; 
which  by  his  exact  Performance  of  it,  gain'd  him  Esteem  and 
Reputation    Superlative    to    all    other    Plays."      Harris    acted 
Horatio;  Mrs.  Davenport   ("Roxalana"),  the  Queen,  and  Mrs. 
Saunderson   (later  Mrs.  Betterton),  Ophelia. 

3  Pepys  generally  uses  the  term  "the  Theatre"  to  refer  to  the 
House  occupied  by  the   King's   company  managed  by   Thomas 
Killigrew.     At  this  time,  this  company  was  playing  in  a  theatre 
in  Vere  Street,  Clare  Market.     Evelyn  had  seen  Hamlet  on  the 
preceding  day,  and  comments  thus  upon  the  performance:   "I 


66   PEPYS  ON  THE  RESTORATION  STAGE 

December  5, 1661.  To  the  Opera,  and  saw  "Ham- 
lett"  well  performed. 

May  28,  1663.  To  the  Royall  Theatre;4  but  that 
was  so  full  they  told  us  we  could  have  no  room.  And 
so  to  the  Duke's  House;  and  there  saw  "Hamlett" 
done,  giving  us  fresh  reason  never  to  think  enough 
of  Betterton.  Who  should  we  see  come  upon  the 
stage  but  Gosnell,  my  wife's  maid?  but  neither  spoke 
danced,  nor  sung;  which  I  was  sorry  for.  But  she 
becomes  the  stage  very  well. 

November  13,  1664.  Spent  all  the  afternoon  with 
my  wife,  within  doors,  and  getting  a  speech  out  of 
Hamlett,  "To  bee  or  not  to  bee,"  without  book. 

August  31,  1668.  To  the  Duke  of  York's  play- 
house, .  .  .  and  saw  "Hamlet,"  which  we  have  not 
seen  this  year  before,  or  more;  and  mightily  pleased 
with  it;  but,  above  all,  with  Betterton,  the  best  part,  I 
believe,  that  ever  man  acted. 


HENRY  IV,  PART  I 

December  31,  1660.  In  Paul's  Churchyard  I 
bought  the  play  of  "Henry  the  Fourth,"1  and  so  went 
to  the  new  Theatre  .  .  .  and  saw  it  acted;  but  my 

saw  Hamlet  Prince  of  Denmark  played,  but  now  the  old  plays 
began  to  disgust  this  refined  age,  since  his  Majestie's  being  so 
long  abroad"  (Diary  of  John  Evelyn,  Wheatley  ed.,  II,  139). 

4  The  new  theatre  in  Drury  Lane  occupied  by  Killigrew's 
company  from  April  or  May  of  this  year  throughout  the  period 
covered  by  Pepys. 

1  The  cast  for  Henry  IF,  Part  I, — presumably  the  part  seen 


SHAKESPEARE'S  PLAYS  67 

expectation  being  too  great,  it^didjigt  please,  me,  as 
otherwise  I  believe  it  would;  and  my  having  a  book,t 
I  believe  did  spoil  it  a  little. 

June  4,  1661.  From  thence  to  the  Theatre  and 
saw  "Harry  the  4th"  a  good  play. 

November  2,  1667.  To  the  King's  playhouse,  and 
there  saw  "Henry  the  Fourth";  and  contrary  to 
expectation,  was  pleased  in  nothing  more  than  in 
Cartwright's  speaking  of  Falstaffe's  speech  about 
"What  is  Honour?"2  The  house  full  of  Parliament- 
men,  it  being  holy  day  with  them. 

January  7 ,  1667-68.  Into  the  pit,  to  gaze  up  and 
down  to  look  for  them,  and  there  did  by  this  means, 
for  nothing,  see  an  act  in  ...  "Henry  the  Fourth"  at 
the  King's  house. 

September  18, 1668.  To  the  King's  house,  and  saw 
a  piece  of  "Henry  the  Fourth." 


HENRY  VIII 

December  10,  1663.    He  [Wotton]  tells  me  ... 
of  a  rare  play  to  be  acted  this  week  of  Sir  William 

by  Pepys  on  this  date,  as  it  certainly  was  on  November  2, 
1667 — is  given  by  John  Downes  (Roscius  Anglwanus,  p.  7) 
as  follows:  "King,  Mr.  Wintersel;  Prince,  Mr.  Burt;  Hotspur, 
Mr.  Hart;  Falstaff,  Mr.  Cartwright;  Poyns,  Mr.  Shotterel."  It 
was  doubtless  acted  "as  Shakespeare  wrote  it/'  as  the  only  altera- 
tion known  is  Betterton's,  which  was  used  later  at  the  Duke's 
playhouse  and  was  printed  in  1700.  The  "new  theatre"  was 
the  King's  in  Vere  Street. 

2  The  last   speech   in   Sc.    1,  Act   V,   of  Henry  IV,   Part   I, 


68   PEPYS  ON  THE  RESTORATION  STAGE 

Davenant's :  the  story  of  Henry  the  Eighth1  with  all 
his  wives. 

December  22, 1663.  I  perceive  the  King  and  Duke 
and  all  the  Court  was  going  to  the  Duke's  playhouse 
to  see  "Henry  VIII"  acted,  which  is  said  to  be  an 
admirable  play. 

December  24,  1663.  By  and  by  comes  in  Captain 
Ferrers  to  see  us,  arid,  among  other  talke,  tells  us  of 
the  goodness  of  the  new  play  of  "Henry  VIII," 
which  makes  me  think  [it]  long  till  my  time  is  out.2 

January  1,  1663-64.  To  the  Duke's  house,  the 
first  play  I  have  been  at  these  six  months,  according 
to  my  last  vowe,  and  here  saw  the  so  much  cried-up 
play  of  "Henry  the  Eighth";  which,  though  I  went 
with  resolution  to  like  it,  is  so  simple  a  thing  made  up 
of  a  great  many  patches,  that,  besides  the  shows  and 
processions  in  it,  there  is  nothing  in  the  world  good 
or  well  done.  Thence  mightily  dissatisfied. 

in  which  Sir  John  asks  himself  this  question  on  the  battlefield 
of  Shrewsbury. 

1  Kilbourne   {Alterations  and  Adaptations  of  Shakespeare,  p. 
112)  says:  "No  alteration  of  this  play  appears  ever  to  have  been 
made."      Perhaps    Pepys   simply   mistook   producer   for   author. 
Downes  (Roscius  Anglicanus,  p.  24)  gives  a  full  account  of  this 
production.     The  play  was  "all  new  Cloath'd  in  proper  Habits" 
and  had  "new  scenes."     "It  continu'd  Acting  15  Days  together 
with  general  Applause."     Betterton  acted  the  King,  having  been 
coached  in  the  part  by  D'Avenant,  "who  had  it  from  old  Mr. 
Lowen,  that  had  his  Instructions  from  Mr.  Shakespear  himself" ; 
Harris  was  Wolsey;  Mrs.  Betterton,  Queen  Catherine. 

2  According  to  the  terms   of  a  vow  to  stay  away   from  the 
theatre  referred  to  again  under  January  1,  1664. 


SHAKESPEARE'S  PLAYS  69 

January  27,  1663-64.  In  the  way  observing  the 
streete  full  of  coaches  at  the  new  play,  "The  Indian 
Queene";3  which  for  show,  they  say,  exceeds  "Henry 
the  Eighth." 

December  30, 1668.  To  the  Duke's  playhouse,  and 
there  did  see  "King  Harry  the  Eighth";  and  was 
mightily  pleased,  better  than  I  ever  expected,  with  the 
history  and  shows  of  it. 


THE  LAW  AGAINST  LOVERS 
(D'Avenant's  Alteration  of  Measure  for  Measure) 

February  18,  1661-62.  There1  saw  "The  Law 
against  Lovers,"2  a  good  play  and  well  performed, 
especially  the  little  girl's  (whom  I  never  saw  act  be- 
fore) dancing3  and  singing;  and  were  it  not  for  her, 
the  loss  of  Roxalana  would  spoil  the  house. 

3  A  tragedy  by  Dryden  and  Sir  Robert  Howard. 

1  At  the  Duke  of  York's  playhouse. 

2  An  alteration   (1662)   of  Measure  for  Measure,  with  Bene- 
dick and  Beatrice  taken  over   from  Much  Ado  about  Nothing, 
printed  in    1673.      Evelyn   saw  it   "acted  before   ye   King"   on 
December  17,  1662  (Diary,  Wheatley  ed.,  II,  156). 

3  Downes    (Roscius   Anglicanus,   p.    26)    mentions    The   Law 
against  Lovers   among  the   plays   acted   at  the   Duke's   theatre 
between  1662  and  1665,  but  does  not  give  the  cast.     It  has  been 
suggested  that  the  actress  here  referred  to  was   Mrs.   Norton. 
"Roxalana"  was  Mrs.  Davenport. 


70   PEPYS  ON  THE  RESTORATION  STAGE 

MACBETH 
( D ' Avenant 's  Alteration  ? ) 

November  5, 1664.  To  the  Duke's  house  to  a  play, 
"Macbeth,"1  a  pretty  good  play,  but  admirably 
acted. 

December  28,  1666.  From  hence  to  the  Duke's 
house,  and  there  saw  "Macbeth"  most  excellently 
acted,  and  a  most  excellent  play  for  variety. 

January  7,  1666-67.  To  the  Duke's  house,  and 
saw  "Macbeth,"  which,  though  I  saw  it  lately,  yet 
appears  a  most  excellent  play  in  all  respects,  but  espe- 
cially in  divertisement,  though  it  be  a  deep  tragedy; 
which  is  a  strange  perfection  in  a  tragedy,  it  being 
most  proper  here,  and  suitable. 

1  It  is  not  certain  what  version  of  Shakespeare's  tragedy  Pepys 
saw,  though  it  was  probably  that  of  D' Avenant  printed  in  1673. 
Downes,  after  describing  "the  Tragedy  of  Macbeth,  alter'd  by 
Sir  William  Davenant"  as  it  was  given  later,  at  the  Dorset 
Garden  theatre  (Roscius  Anglicanus,  p.  33) — "drest  in  all  it's 
Finery,  as  new  Cloath's,  new  Scenes,  Machines,  as  flyings  for 
the  Witches;  with  all  the  Singing  and  Dancing  in  it  .  .  .it 
being  all  Excellently  perform'd  being  in  the  nature  of  an 
Opera" — notes  that  "this  Tragedy/'  and  two  others,  "were 
Acted  in  Lincolns-Inn-Fields."  In  a  remark  once  passed  by 
Charles  the  Second  as  it  is  repeated  by  Gibber,  there  is  a  sug- 
gestion as  to  the  make-up  of  the  Murderers  in  Macbeth  at  this 
time:  "Turning  to  his  People,  in  the  Box  about  him,  Pray  what 
is  the  Meaning,  said  he,  that  we  never  see  a  Rogue  in  a  Play, 
but  Gods  fish!  they  always  clap  him  on  a  black  Perriwig?" 
{Apology  for  the  Life  of  Mr.  Colley  Gibber,  Lowe  ed.,  I,  133). 
Betterton  played  Macbeth;  Harris,  Macduff;  Smith,  Banquo; 
Mrs.  Betterton,  Lady  Macbeth;  Sandford,  Banquo's  Ghost,  in 
the  later  performances  (Genest,  I,  pp.  139-140). 


SHAKESPEARE'S  PLAYS  71 

April  19,  1667.  So  to  the  playhouse,  not  much 
company  come,  which  I  impute  to  the  heat  of  the 
weather,  it  being  very  hot.  Here  we  saw  "Macbeth" 
which,  though  I  have  seen  it  often,  yet  it  is  one  of  the 
best  plays  for  a  stage,  and  variety  of  dancing  and 
musique,  that  ever  I  saw.  So,  being  very  much 
pleased,  thence  home. 

October  16,  1667.  To  the  Duke  of  York's  house. 
...  I  was  vexed  to  see  Young  (who  is  but  a  bad 
actor  at  best)  act  Macbeth  in  the  room  of  Betterton, 
who,  poor  man!  is  sick:  but,  Lord!  what  a  prejudice 
it  wrought  in  me  against  the  whole  play,  and  every- 
body else  agreed  in  disliking  this  fellow. 

November  6,  '1667.  To  a  play,  .  .  .  "Macbeth," 
which  we  still  like  mightily,  though  mighty  short  of 
the  content  we  used  to  have  when  Betterton  acted, 
who  is  still  sick. 

August  12,  1668.  To  the  Duke  of  York's  house, 
and  saw  "Mackbeth,"  to  our  great  content. 

December  21,  1668.  Thence  to  the  Duke's  play- 
house, and  saw  "Macbeth."  The  King  and, Court 
there. 

January  15,  1668-69.  My  wife  to  the  Duke  of 
York's  house,  to  "Macbeth."  .  .  .  And  having  done 
my  own  business  .  .  .  I  to  the  Duke  of  York's  house, 
and  saw  the  last  two  acts. 


THE  MERRY  WIVES  OF  WINDSOR 

December  5, 1660.    After  dinner  I  went  to  the  new 
Theatre  and  there   I   saw   "The   Merry  Wives   of 


72   PEPYS  ON  THE  RESTORATION  STAGE 

Windsor"1  acted,  the  humours  of  the  country  gentle- 
man and  the  French  doctor2  very  well  done,  but  the 
rest  but  very  poorly,  and  Sir  J.  Falstaffe  as  bad  as 
any. 

September  25,  1661.  Hence  much  against  my 
nature  and  will,  yet  such  is  the  power  of  the  Devil 
over  me  I  could  not  refuse  it,  to  the  Theatre,  and  saw 
"The  Merry  Wives  of  Windsor,"  ill  done. 

August  15,  1667.  To  the  King's,  and  there  saw 
"The  Merry  Wives  of  Windsor":  which  did  not 
please  me  at  all,  in  no  part  of  it. 


A  MIDSUMMER-NIGHT'S  DREAM 

September  29,  1668.  Then  to  the  King's  Theatre, 
where  we  saw  "Midsummer  Night's  Dream,"1  which 
I  had  never  seen  before,  nor  shall  ever  again,  for  it 
is  the  most  insipid  ridiculous  play  that  ever  I  saw  in 
my  life.  I  saw,  I  confess,  some  good  dancing  and 
some  handsome  women,  which  was  all  my  pleasure. 

1  Shakespeare's  comedy  unaltered. 

2  William  Cartwright  presumably  acted  the  part  of  Falstaff, 
as  he  did  in  Henry  IV,  Part  I,  but  neither  Downes  nor  Genest 
gives  the  names   of  the   actors  who  took  the  parts   of  Justice 
Shallow  or  Dr.  Caius. 

1  "This  seems  to  be  the  only  mention  of  the  acting  of  Shake- 
speare's play  at  the  time"  (Pepys's  Diary,  Wheatley  ed.,  II, 
326  n).  It  was  probably  acted  unaltered. 


SHAKESPEARE'S  PLAYS  73 

OTHELLO,  THE  MOOR  or  VENICE 

October  11,  1660.  To  the  Cockpit  to  see  "The 
Moore  of  Venice,"1  which  was  well  done.  Burt  acted 
the  Moore;  by  the  same  token,  a  very  pretty  lady 
that  sat  by  me,  called  out,  to  see  Desdemona 
smothered. 

August  20,  1666.  To  Deptford  by  water,  reading 
"Othello,  Moore  of  Venice,"  which  I  ever  heretofore 
esteemed  a  mighty  good  play,  but  having  so  lately 
read  "The  Adventures  of  Five  Houres,"  it  seems  a 
mean  thing. 

February  6,  1668-69.  To  the  King's  playhouse, 
and  there  ...  did  see  "The  Moor  of  Venice":  but  ill 
acted  in  most  parts;  Mohun,  which  did  a  little  sur- 
prise me,  not  acting  lago's  part  by  much  so  well  as 
Clun  used  to  do;  nor  another  Hart's  which  was  Cas- 
sio's;  nor,  indeed,  Burt  doing  the  Moor's  so  well  as 
I  once  thought  he  did. 


ROMEO  AND  JULIET 

March  1, 1661-62.  Thence  to  the  Opera,  and  there 
saw  "Romeo  and  Juliet,"  the  first  time  it  was 

1  Othello  does  not  appear  to  have  been  altered.  Downes 
(Roscius  Anglicanus,  pp.  6-7)  gives  the  cast  as  follows: 
"Brabantio,  Mr.  Cartwright;  Moor,  Mr.  Burt;  Cassio,  Mr. 
Hart;  Jago,  Major  Mohun;  Roderigo,  Mr.  Beeston;  Desdemona, 
Mrs.  Hughs;  Emilia,  Mrs.  Rutter."  The  Cockpit  theatre  here 
referred  to  was  probably  the  old  playhouse  in  Drury  Lane. 


74   PEPYS  ON  THE  RESTORATION  STAGE 

ever  acted;1  but  it  is  a  play  of  itself  the  worst  that 
ever  I  heard  in  my  life,  and  the  worst  acted  that  ever 
I  saw  these  people  do,2  and  I  am  resolved  to  go  no 
more  to  see  the  first  time  of  acting,  for  they  were  all 
of  them  out  more  or  less. 


SAWNEY  THE  SCOT,,  OR  THE  TAMING  or  THE  SHREW 
(Lacy's  Alteration  of  The  Taming  of  the  Shrew] 

April  93 1667.  To  the  King's  house,  .  .  .  and  there 
we  saw  "The  Tameing  of  a  Shrew,"1  which  hath  some 
very  good  pieces  in  it,  but  generally  is  but  a  mean 
play:  and  the  best  part,  "Sawny,"  done  by  Lacy, 
hath  not  half  its  life,  by  reason  of  the  words,  I  sup- 
pose, not  being  understood,  at  least  by  me. 

November  1,  1667.  To  the  King's  playhouse  and 
there  saw  a  silly  play  and  an  old  one,  "The  Taming 
of  a  Shrew." 

1  Pepys  means,  of  course,  since  the  Restoration.     This  was 
Shakespeare's    play    probably    unaltered,    as    James    Howard's 
version  was  "made  some  time  later"  and  was  used  "when  the 
Tragedy  was  Revived  again."     (Cf.  Roscius  Anglicanus,  p.  22.) 

2  According  to  Downes  (Ibid.),  Harris  acted  Romeo;  Better- 
ton,  Mercutio;  Mrs.  Saunderson,  Juliet.     R.  W.  Lowe   (in  his 
Thomas  Betterton,  1891  ed.,  p.  89)  suggests  "that  this  distribu- 
tion of  the  two  parts  [Romeo  and  Mercutio]  is  somewhat  curious 
in  view  of  Pepys's  opinion" — inferring  that  Harris  should  have 
made  the  better  Mercutio  and  Betterton  the  better  Romeo. 

1  "This  was  Lacy's  alteration  of  Shakespeare's  play.  Lacy 
acted  Sauny"  (Genest,  I,  69).  It  was  printed  in  1698.  Saw- 
ney is  Grumio  turned  into  a  coarse,  officious  Scotch  servant  to 
Petruchio. 


SHAKESPEARE'S  PLAYS  75 

THE  TEMPEST,  OR  THE  ENCHANTED  ISLAND  ^ 

(Alteration  of  The  Tempest  by  D'Avenant  and 
Dry  den) 

November  7,  1667.  Resolved  with  Sir  W.  Pen  to 
go  to  see  "The  Tempest,"  an  old  play  of  Shake- 
speare's,1 acted,  I  hear,  the  first  day ;  .  .  .  and  forced 
to  sit  in  the  side  balcone  over  against  the  musique- 
room  at  the  Duke's  house,  close  by  my  Lady  Dorset,2 
and  a  great  many  great  ones.  The  house  mighty  full; 
and  the  King  and  Court  there :  and  the  most  innocent 
play  that  I  ever  saw;  and  a  curious  piece  of  musique3 
in  an  echo  of  half  sentences,  the  echo  repeating  the 
former  half,  while  the  man  goes  on  to  the  latter; 
which  is  mighty  pretty.  The  play  [has]  no  great 
wit,  but  yet  good,  above  ordinary  plays. 

November  13, 1667.  To  the  Duke  of  York's  house, 
and  there  saw  the  Tempest  again,  which  is  very  pleas- 
ant, and  full  of  so  good  variety  that  I  cannot  be  more 
pleased  almost  in  a  comedy,  only  the  seamen's  part4 
a  little  too  tedious. 

1  In  D'Avenant  and  Dryden's  version  (1667),  with  elaborate 
scenery,  dancing,  and  music,  as   Downes    (Roscius  Anglicanus, 
p.  33)  confirms:  "This  Tragedy,  King  Lear,  and  The  Tempest, 
were  Acted  in  Lincolns-Inn-Fields;  .   .    .  the  Tempest  alter'd  by 
Sir  William  Davenant  and  Mr.  Dryden  before  t'was  made  into 
an  Opera." 

2  The  wife  of  the  fifth  Earl  of  Dorset  and  mother  of  Lord 
Buckhurst. 

3  In  Sc.  4,  Act  III,  of  this  version,  where  Ferdinand  sings 
to   himself   and   Ariel   echoes    him.      The   music   was    by   John 
Bannister. 

4  What    Dryden    called   "the    comical   parts    of   the    sailors," 
written  by  D'Avenant. 


76   PEPYS  ON  THE  RESTORATION  STAGE 

December  12, 1667.  To  the  Duke  of  York's  house, 
and  saw  "The  Tempest,"  which,  as  often  as  I  have 
seen  it,  I  do  like  very  well,  and  the  house  very  full. 

January  6,  1667-68.  To  the  Duke's  house;  and, 
the  house  being  full,  was  forced  to  carry  them  to  a 
box,  which  did  cost  me  20s..,  besides  oranges,  which 
troubled  me,  though  their  company  did  please  me. 
Thence,  after  the  play,  stayed  till  Harris  was  un- 
dressed, there  being  acted  "The  Tempest." 

February  3,  1667-68.  To  the  Duke  of  York's 
house,  to  the  play,  "The  Tempest,"  which  we  have 
often  seen,  but  yet  I  was  pleased  again,  and  shall  be 
again  to  see  it,  it  is  so  full  of  variety,  and  particularly 
this  day  I  took  pleasure  to  learn  the  time  of  the  sea- 
man's dance,5  which  I  have  much  desired  to  be  perfect 
in,  and  have  made  myself  so. 

March  25,  1668.  To  see  "The  Storme"6  ...  but 
a  mean  play  compared  with  "The  Tempest,"  at  the 
Duke  of  York's  house. 

April  30, 1668.  To  the  Duke  of  York's  playhouse, 
and  there  saw  "The  Tempest,"  which  still  pleases  me 
mightily. 

May  11,  1668.  To  the  Duke  of  York's  playhouse, 
and  there  saw  "The  Tempest,"  and  between  two  acts, 
I  went  out  to  Mr.  Harris,  and  got  him  to  repeat  to 
me  the  words  of  the  Echo,  while  I  writ  them  down, 
having  tried  in  the  play  to  have  wrote  them ;  but,  when 
I  had  done  it,  having  done  it  without  looking  upon 
my  paper,  I  find  I  could  not  read  the  blacklead.  But 

5  In  Act  V. 

6  A  comedy  by  Fletcher  and  Massinger. 


SHAKESPEARE'S  PLAYS  77 

now  I  have  got  the  words  clear,  and,  in  going  thither, 
had  the  pleasure  to  see  the  actors  in  their  several 
dresses  especially  the  seamen  and  monster,7  which 
were  very  droll:  so  into  the  play  again. 

January  21, 1668-69.    There8  saw  "The  Tempest" ; 
but  it  is  but  ill  done  by  Gosnell  in  lieu  of  Moll  Davis. 


TWELFTH  NIGHT,  OR  WHAT  You  WILL 

September  11,  1661.  He  and  I  walking  through 
Lincoln's  Inn  Fields  observed  at  the  Opera  a  new 
play,  "Twelfth  Night,"1  was  acted  there,  and  the 
King  there;  so  I,  against  my  own  mind  and  resolu- 
tion, could  not  forbear  to  go  in,  which  did  make  the 
play  seem  a  burthen  to  me,  and  I  took  no  pleasure  at 
all  in  it ;  and  so  after  it  was  done  went  home  with  my 
mind  troubled  for  my  going  thither,  after  my  swear- 
ing to  my  wife  that  I  would  never  go  to  a  play  with- 
out her. 

January  6,  1662-63.  To  the  Duke's  house,  and 
there  saw  "Twelfth  Night"  acted  well,  though  it  be 
but  a  silly  play,  and  not  related  at  all  to  the  name  or 
day. 

7  Probably  Caliban. 

8  At  the  Duke's  playhouse. 

1  Without  alterations.  It  "had  mighty  Success  by  its  well 
Performance,"  says  Downes,  who,  however,  seems  to  be  describ- 
ing the  occasion  noted  in  Pepys's  entry  of  January  6,  1663,  as 
he  adds,  "It  was  got  up  on  purpose  to  be  Acted  on  Twelfth 
Night"  (Roscius  Anglicanus,  p.  23).  Betterton  played  Sir  Toby 
Belch;  and  Harris,  Sir  Andrew  Aguecheek. 


78   PEPYS  ON  THE  RESTORATION  STAGE 

January  20,  1668-69.  To  the  Duke  of  York's 
house,  and  saw  "Twelfth  Night,"  as  it  is  now  revived; 
but,  I  think,  one  of  the  weakest  plays  that  ever  I  saw 
on  the  stage. 


CHAPTER  II 
OTHER  PRE-RESTORATION  PLAYS 


CHAPTER  II 
OTHER  PRE-RESTORATION  PLAYS 

Berkeley,  Sir  William  THE  LOST  LADY 

January  19, 1660-61.  Myself  went  to  the  Theatre, 
where  I  saw  "The  Lost  Lady,"1  which  do  not  please 
me  much.  Here  I  was  troubled  to  be  seen  by  four  of 
our  office  clerks,  which  sat  in  the  half-crown  box  and 
I  in  the  Is.  6d. 

January  28,  1660-61.  To  the  Theatre,  where  I 
saw  again  "The  Lost  Lady,"  which  do  now  please  me 
better  than  before ;  and  here  I  sitting  behind  in  a  dark 
place,  a  lady  spit  backward  upon  me  by  a  mistake,  not 
seeing  me,  but  after  seeing  her  to  be  a  very  pretty 
lady,  I  was  not  troubled  at  it  at  all. 


[Beaumont  and]  Fletcher  and  Massinger  (?) 

THE  BEGGARS''  BUSH 

November  20,  1660.  To  the  new  Play-house  near 
Lincoln's-Inn-Fields  (which  was  formerly  Gibbon's 

XA  tragi-comedy  (1637?)  by  Sir  William  Berkeley,  subse- 
quently governor  of  Virginia.  It  is  also  mentioned  in  Sir  Henry 
Herbert's  list  of  plays  produced  by  Killigrew's  company,  given 
in  Malone's  Shakspeare,  Vol.  I,  Part  II,  p.  266,  as  having  been 
acted  on  this  date. 


82   PEPYS  ON  THE  RESTORATION  STAGE 

tennis-court),  where  the  play  of  "Beggar's  Bush"1 
was  newly  begun ;  and  so  we  went  in  and  saw  it,  it  was 
well  acted :  and  here  I  saw  the  first  time  one  Moone,2 
who  is  said  to  be  the  best  actor  in  the  world,  lately 
come  over  with  the  King,  and  indeed  it  is  the  finest 
play-house,  I  believe,  that  ever  was  in  England. 

January  3,  1660-61.  To  the  Theatre,  where  was 
acted  "Beggar's  Bush,"  it  being  very  well  done;  and 
here  the  first  time  that  ever  I  saw  women  come  upon 
the  stage.3 

October  8,  1661.  Carried  her4  to  the  Theatre  in  a 
frolique,  to  my  great  expense,  and  there  shewed  her 
part  of  the  "Beggar's  Bush,"  without  much  pleasure, 
but  only  for  a  frolique. 

April  24,  1668.  Thence  to  the  King's  playhouse, 
and  there  saw  a  piece  of  "Beggar's  Bush,"  which  I 
have  not  seen  some  years. 

[Beaumont  and]  Fletcher  THE  CHANCES 

April  27,  1661.  To  the  Theatre  to  see  "The 
Chances."1 

*A  comedy  (1622)  by  [Beaumont  and]  Fletcher  and  Mas- 
singer  (?)  acted  at  the  King's  theatre,  Vere  Street.  It  is  men- 
tioned in  the  list  of  plays  produced  by  Killigrew's  company, 
given  in  Malone's  Shakspeare,  Vol.  I,  Part  II,  p.  266,  as  having 
been  acted  on  this  date. 

2  Michael    Mohun    probably    played    the    part    of    Goswin, 
according  to  Genest  (I,  377). 

3  Neither  Downes  nor  Genest  gives  the  cast  of  this  perform- 
ance. 

4  Martha,  daughter  of  Sir  W.   Batten. 

1A   comedy    (1615?)    adapted  by   John   Fletcher   from   Cer- 


OTHER  PRE-RESTORATION  PLAYS  83 

October  9,  1661.  Took  them  to  the  Theatre,  and 
shewed  them  "The  Chances." 

February  5,  1666-67.  To  the  King's  house,  to 
show  them  a  play,  "The  Chances."  A  good  play  I 
find  it,  and  the  actors  most  good  in  it,2  and  pretty  to 
hear  Knipp  sing  in  the  play  very  properly,  "All  night 
I  weepe";3  and  sung  it  admirably.  The  whole  play 
pleases  me  well:  and  most  of  all,  the  sight  of  many 
fine  ladies. 


Beaumont  (?)  and  Fletcher  THE  COXCOMB 

March  17, 1668-69.  To  the  King's  playhouse,  and 
saw  "The  Coxcomb,"1  the  first  time  acted,  but  an  old 
play,  and  a  silly  one,  being  acted  only  by  the  young 
people.2 

vantes's  La  Senora  Cornelia,  acted  probably  "with  the  altera- 
tions made  in  it  by  Villiers,  Duke  of  Buckingham."  Genest 
notes  further  (I,  67)  :  "This  is  perhaps  the  happiest  material 
alteration  of  any  old  play  ever  made." 

2  Downes  mentions  the  play  in  the  list  of  the  "Principal  Old 
Stock  Plays"  of  the  King's  company  (Roscius  Anglicanus,  p.  8), 
but  does  not  give  the  cast,  though  he  states  that  Don  John  was 
among  the  best  parts  of  the  actor  Hart. 

3  Mrs.  Knepp's  song  does  not  occur  in  this  or  in  other  known 
versions  of  the  play. 

XA  comedy  by  Beaumont  (?)  and  Fletcher  (circa  1610). 
Langbaine  (p.  208)  says  it  "was  reviv'd  at  the  Theatre-Royal, 
the  Prologue  being  spoken  by  Jo.  Hains." 

2  That  is,  the  company  without  the  "stars." 


84   PEPYS  ON  THE  RESTORATION  STAGE 

[Beaumont  and]  Fletcher 

CUPID'S  REVENGE,  OR  LOVE  DESPISED 

August  17,  1668.  Thence  to  the  Duke  of  York's 
house,  and  there  saw  "Cupid's  Revenge,"  under  the 
new  name  of  "Love  Despised,"1  that  hath  something 
very  good  in  it,  though  I  like  not  the  whole  body  of 
it.  This  day  the  first  time  acted  here. 


[Beaumont  and]  Fletcher  and  Massinger  ( ?) 

THE  CUSTOM  OF  THE  COUNTRY 

September  25, 1664.  Then  I  to  read  another  play, 
"The  Custome  of  the  Country,"1  which  is  a  very  poor 
one,  methinks. 

January  2,  1666-67.  To  the  King's  House,  and 
there  saw  "The  Custome  of  the  Country,"  the  second 
time  of  its  being  acted,  wherein  Knipp  does  the 
Widow2  well;  but  of  all  the  plays  that  ever  I  did  see, 
the  worst — having  neither  plot,  language,  nor  any- 
thing in  the  earth  that  is  acceptable ;  only  Knipp  sings 
a  little  song  admirably.  But  fully  the  worst  play 
that  ever  I  saw  or  I  believe  shall  see. 

August  1,  1667.  Upon  a  motion  of  the  women,  I 
was  got  to  go  to  a  play  with  them,  the  first  I  have 

*A  tragedy  (1612)  by  John  Fletcher.  Downes  (Roscius 
Anglicanus,  p.  29)  merely  states  that  it  was  acted  subsequent 
to  Etherege's  She  Would  if  She  Could. 

1A  coarse  comedy  (1619-1622)  by  Fletcher  and  Massinger 
(?).  Langbaine  (p.  208)  mentions  its  revival. 

2  The  "widow"  was  Guiomar,  mother  of  Duarte. 


OTHER  PRE-RESTORATION  PLAYS  85 

seen  since  before  the  Dutch  coming  upon  our  coast, 
and  so  to  the  King's  house,  to  see  "The  Custome  of 
the  Country."  The  house  mighty  empty — more  than 
ever  I  saw  it — and  an  ill  play. 


[Beaumont  and]  Fletcher          THE  ELDER  BROTHER 

September  6, 1661.    I  went  to  the  Theatre,  and  saw 
"Elder  Brother,"1  ill-acted. 


[Beaumont  and]  Fletcher 

THE  FAITHFUL  SHEPHERDESS 

June  13,  1663.  To  the  Royall  Theatre.  .  .  . 
Here  we  saw  "The  Faithful  Sheepheardesse,"1  a  most 
simple  thing,  and  yet  much  thronged  after,  and  often 
shown,  but  it  is  only  for  the  scene's  sake,  which  is  very 
fine  indeed  and  worth  seeing;  but  I  am  quite  out  of 
opinion  with  any  of  their  actings,  but  Lacy's,  com- 
pared with  the  other  house. 

October  12,  1668.  To  the  King's  playhouse,  .  .  . 
and  there  we  did  hear  the  Eunuch  (who,  it  seems,  is 
a  Frenchman,  but  long  bred  in  Italy)  sing,  which 

1  A  comedy  by  John  Fletcher,  revised  by  Massinger  (1626?). 
The  cast  as  given  by  Downes  (Roscius  Anglicanus,  p.  6)  included 
Burt  as  Charles,  Kynaston  as  Eustace,  and  Mrs.  Rutter  and 
Mrs.  Boutel  in  the  women's  parts. 

*A  pastoral  drama  by  John  Fletcher,  acted  in  1608,  and 
revived  with  a  setting  by  Inigo  Jones  in  1634.  The  cast  is  not 
given  by  Downes. 


86   PEPYS  ON  THE  RESTORATION  STAGE 

I  seemed  to  take  as  new  to  me,  though  I  saw  him  on 
Saturday  last,  but  said  nothing  of  it;  but  such  action 
and  singing  I  could  never  have  imagined  to  have 
heard. 

October  14,  1668.  To  the  King's  playhouse,  and 
there  saw  "The  Faythful  Shepherdess"  again,  that 
we  might  hear  the  French  Eunuch  sing,  which  we  did, 
to  our  great  content;  though  I  do  admire  his  action 
as  much  as  his  singing,  being  both  beyond  all  I  ever 
saw  or  heard. 

February  26,  1668-69.  To  the  King's  playhouse, 
to  shew  them  that,  and  there  saw  "The  Faithfull 
vShepherdesse."  But,  Lord!  what  an  empty  house, 
there  not  being,  as  I  could  tell  the  people,  so  many  as 
to  make  up  above  .£10  in  the  whole  house !  The  being 
of  a  new  play2  at  the  other  house,  I  suppose,  being 
the  cause,  though  it  be  a  silly  play,  that  I  wonder  how 
there  should  be  enough  people  to  go  thither  two  days 
together,  and  not  leave  more  to  fill  this  house.  The 
emptiness  of  the  house  took  away  our  pleasure  a 
great  deal,  though  I  liked  it  the  better;  for  that  I 
plainly  discern  the  musick  is  the  better  by  how  much 
the  house  the  emptier. 


[Beaumont  and]  Fletcher          FATHER'S  OWN  SON 

September  28, 1661.  I  and  my  wife  to  the  Theatre, 
and  there  saw  "Father's  Own  Son,"1  a  very  good 
play  and  the  first  time  I  ever  saw  it. 

2  Shadwell's  The  Royal  Shepherdess  at  the  Duke's  house. 
1  This  play  has  been  identified  as  Fletcher's  Monsieur  Thomas, 


OTHER  PRE-RESTORATION  PLAYS  87 

November  13,  1661.    From  thence  to  the  Theatre, 
and  there  saw  "Father's  Own  Son"  again. 


[Beaumont  and]  Fletcher 

THE  HUMOUROUS  LIEUTENANT 

April  20, 1661.  So  back  to  the  Cockpitt,  and  there 
by  the  favour  of  one  Mr.  Bowman,  he1  and  I  got  in, 
and  there  saw  the  King  and  the  Duke  of  York  and  his 
Duchess  (which  is  a  plain  woman,  and  like  her 
mother,  my  Lady  Chancellor).  And  so  saw  "The 
Humersome  Lieutenant2  acted  before  the  King,  but 
not  very  well  done.  But  my  pleasure  was  great  to 
see  the  manner  of  it,  and  so  many  great  beauties,  but 
above  all  Mrs.  Palmer,3  with  whom  the  King  do  dis- 
cover a  great  deal  of  familiarity. 

May  7,  1663.     This  day  the  new  Theatre  Royal 

originally  acted  at  the  Cockpit  and  Blackfriars,  and  printed  in 
1639.  W.  C.  Hazlitt  (A  Manual  for  the  Collector  and  Amateur 
of  Old  English  Plays,  p.  160)  states  that  "about  1660,  it  was 
reissued  under  the  title  of  Father's  Own  Son,  by  which  it  is 
mentioned  in  the  Lord  Chamberlain's  Accounts,  as  early  as 
1639."  Father's  Own  Son,  from  the  list  of  plays  in  Malone's 
Shakspeare  (Vol.  I,  Part  II,  p.  267),  appears  to  have  been 
acted  by  the  King's  company  on  April  19,  1662. 

1  John    Creed    (? — 1701?),    a    friend    of    Pepys,    of    humble 
origin,  frequently  mentioned  in  the  Diary;  he  was  made  Secre- 
tary to  the  Commissioners  for  Tangier  in  1662. 

2  A   tragi-comedy    (1619)    by    John    Fletcher,    performed   in 
Whitehall  Palace. 

3  Referred  to  later  as  Lady  Castlemaine.     Cf.  p.  278  n. 


88   PEPYS  ON  THE  RESTORATION  STAGE 

begins  to  act4  with  scenes  the  Humourous  Lieutenant, 
but  I  have  not  time  to  see  it. 

May  8,  1663.  To  the  Theatre  Royall,  being  the 
second  day  of  its  being  opened.  .  .  .  The  play  was 
"The  Humerous  Lieutenant,"  a  play  that  hath  little 
good  in  it,  nor  much  in  the  very  part5  which,  by  the 
King's  command,  Lacy  now  acts  instead  of  Clun.  In 
the  dance,  the  tall  devil's  actions  was  very  pretty. 

January  23, 1666-67.  Thence  to  the  King's  house, 
and  there  saw  "The  Humerous  Lieutenant";  a  silly 
play,  I  think;  only  the  Spirit  in  it  that  grows  very 
tall,  and  then  sinks  again  to  nothing,  having  two 
heads  breeding  upon  one,  and  then  Knipp's  singing, 
did  please  us.  ...  Knipp  took  us  all  in,  and  brought 
to  us  Nelly,  a  most  pretty  woman,  who  acted  the  part 
of  Coelia6  to-day  very  fine,  and  did  it  pretty  well: 
I  kissed  her,  and  so  did  my  wife;  and  a  mighty  pretty 
soul  she  is.  We  also  saw  Mrs.  Hall,  which  is  my 
little  Roman- nose  black  girl,  that  is  mighty  pretty: 
she  is  usually  called  Betty.  Knipp  made  us  stay  in 
a  box  and  see  the  dancing  preparatory  to  to-morrow 
for  "The  Goblins,"7  a  play  of  Suckling's  not  acted 
these  twenty-five  years. 

4  On  the  authority  of  Dowries  (Roscius  Angllcanus,  p.  3)  and 
a  playbill  which  R.  W.  Lowe  characterizes  as  "a  not  very  astute 
forgery/'  it  has  also  been  asserted  that  the  opening  took  place 
on  April  8. 

5  The  title  part. 

6  According  to  Downes,  in  the  original  cast  Mrs.  Marshall  was 
Celia.      Mohun  took  the   part   of   Leontius;    Hart,   Demetrius; 
Burt,    Seleucus;    and    Wintersell,    Antigonus.      The    play    was 
"Acted  Twelve  Days  successively"  (Ibid.,  p.  3). 

7  A  comedy   (1638?)  by  Sir  John  Suckling. 


-  -—.— , 


OTHER  PRE-RESTORATION  PLAYS  89 

[Beaumont  and]  Fletcher 

THE  ISLAND  PBINCESS,  on  THE  GENEROUS 

PORTUGAL 

January  7 , 1668-69.  To  the  King's  playhouse,  and 
there  saw  "The  Island  Princesse,"1  the  first  time  I 
ever  saw  it;  and  it  is  a  pretty  good  play,  many  good 
things  being  in  it,  and  a  good  scene  of  a  town  on  fire.2 

February  9,  1668-69.  To  the  King's  playhouse, 
and  there  saw  "The  Island  Princesse,"  which  I  like 
mighty  well,  as  an  excellent  play:  and  here  we  find 
Kinaston3  to  be  well  enough  to  act  again,  which  he  do 
very  well,  after  his  beating  by  Sir  Charles  Sedley's 
appointment. 

April  23,  1669.  Thence  to  the  King's  playhouse, 
and  saw  "The  Generous  Portugalls,"  a  play  that 
pleases  me  better  and  better  every  time  we  see  it. 


Beaumont  and  Fletcher  A  KING  AND  NO  KING  ^ 

March  14, 1660-61.  To  the  Theatre,  and  there  saw 
"King  and  no  King,"1  well  acted. 

September  26,  1661.    With  my  wife  by  coach  to 

*A  tragi-comedy  (1621?)  by  John  Fletcher,  revived  with 
alterations  and  additions,  and  published  in  1669.  According 
to  Genest  (I,  93),  Kynaston  (as  King  of  Tidore),  Cartwright 
(Governor  of  Ternata),  Mrs.  Marshall  (Quisara),  Hart  (Armi- 
sia),  and  Mohun  (Ruy  Bias)  were  in  the  cast. 

2  Act  II,  Sc.  3,  where  the  chief  town  in  Ternata  burns. 

3  Edward  Kynaston  in  the  role  of  the  King. 

1  A  tragi-comedy  by  Beaumont  and  Fletcher,  licensed  in  1611. 
In  the  cast  of  a  later  performance,  were  Hart  as  Arbaces; 


90   PEPYS  ON  THE  RESTORATION  STAGE 

the  Theatre  to  shew  her  "King  and  no  King,"  it  being 
very  well  done. 


Beaumont  and  Fletcher  (?) 

THE  KNIGHT  OF  THE  BURNING  PESTLE 

May  7, 1662.  To  the  Theatre,  where  I  saw  the  last 
act  of  the  "Knight  of  the  Burning  Pestle,"1  which 
pleased  me  not  at  all. 


[Beaumont  and]  Fletcher  and  Shirley 

THE  NIGHT  WALKER,  OR  THE  LITTLE  THIEF 

April  2,  1661.  So  to  White-fryars  and  saw  "The 
Little  Thiefe,"1  which  is  a  very  merry  and  pretty 
play,  and  the  little  boy  do  very  well. 

March  31,  1662.  Thence  to  the  play,  where  com- 
ing late,  and  meeting  with  Sir  W.  Pen,2  who  had  got 
room  for  my  wife  and  his  daughter  in  the  pit,  he  and 

Mohun,  Mardonius;  Burt,  Tygranes;  Nell  Gwyn,  Panthea;  and 
Mrs.  Corey,  Arane.  (Cf.  Roscius  Anglicanus,  p.  5.) 

*A  comedy  (before  1613)  by  Francis  Beaumont  and  John 
Fletcher  (?).  It  is  mentioned  in  the  list  of  plays  produced  by 
Killigrew's  company,  given  in  Malone's  Shakspeare,  Vol.  II, 
Part  II,  p.  267,  as  having  been  acted  two  days  before,  on  May  5. 

*A  comedy  by  John  Fletcher  corrected  by  Shirley  (1634). 
Langbaine  (p.  213)  mentions  having  seen  it  "acted  by  the 
King's  Servants,  with  great  applause." 

2  Sir  William  Penn  (1621-1670),  the  distinguished  naval 
officer  and  later  Commissioner  of  the  Navy.  He  was  the  father 
of  William  Penn,  founder  of  Pennsylvania. 


OTHER  PRE-RESTORATION  PLAYS  91 

I  into  one  of  the  boxes,  and  there  we  sat  and  heard 
"The  Little  Thiefe,"  a  pretty  play  and  well  done. 

May  19, 1662.    To  the  Theatre,  and  there  in  a  box 
saw  "The  little  Thief"  well  done. 


[Beaumont  and]  Fletcher          THE  LOYAL  SUBJECT 

August  18,  1660.  After  dinner  ...  to  the  Cock- 
pitt  play,  the  first  that  I  have  had  time  to  see  since 
my  coming  from  sea,1  "The  Loyall  Subject,"2  where 
one  Kinaston,  a  boy,  acted  the  Duke's  sister,3  but 
made  the  loveliest  lady  that  ever  I  saw  in  my  life, 
only  her  voice  not  very  good.  After  the  play  done, 
we  three  went  to  drink,  and  by  Captain  Ferrers' 
means,  Kinaston  and  another4  that  acted  Archas,  the 
General,  came  and  drank  with  us. 


[Beaumont  and]  Fletcher  THE  MAD  LOVER 

February  9,  1660-61.     Creed   and   I   to   White- 
friars1  to  the  Play-house,  and  saw  "The  Mad  Lover,"2 

1  After  his  voyage  to  Holland  on  the  ship  that  brought  over 
the  King. 

2  A  tragi-comedy  (1618)  by  John  Fletcher,  performed  at  the 
Cockpit  in  Drury  Lane. 

3  Olympia. 

4  Lowe    suggests    that    this    was    probably    Betterton.       (Cf. 
Thomas  Betterton,    1891    ed.,   p.    61.) 

1  That  is,  to  the  Salisbury  Court  theatre,  Whitefriars. 

2  A  tragi-comedy  (before  1619)  by  John  Fletcher,  mentioned 


92   PEPYS  ON  THE  RESTORATION  STAGE 

the  first  time  I  ever  saw  it  acted,  which  I  like  pretty 
well. 

December  2, 1661.  To  the  Opera  to  see  "The  Mad 
Lover,"  but  not  much  pleased  with  the  play. 

September  25, 1664.  I  spent  all  the  morning  read- 
ing of  "The  Madd  Lovers,"  a  very  good  play, 

February  18,  1668-69.  To  the  Duke  of  York's 
house,  to  a  play,  and  there  saw  "The  Mad  Lover," 
which  do  not  please  me  so  well  as  it  used  to  do,  only, 
Betterton's  part3  still  pleases  me. 


Beaumont  and  Fletcher  THE  MAID'S  TRAGEDY 

May  16, 1661.  So  went  away  to  the  Theatre,  and 
there  saw  the  latter  end  of  "The  Mayd's  Tragedy,"1 
which  I  never  saw  before,  and  methinks  it  is  too  sad 
and  melancholy. 

December  7 ,  1666.  To  the  King's  playhouse, 
where  two  acts  were  almost  done  when  I  come  in ;  and 
there  I  sat  with  my  cloak  about  my  face,  and  saw  the 
remainder  of  "The  Mayd's  Tragedy";  a  good  play, 

in  the  list  of  plays  produced  by  Killigrew's  company,  given  in 
Malone's  Shakspeare,  Vol.  I,  Part  II,  p.  266,  as  acted  in  Feb- 
ruary of  this  year. 

3  Memnon,  the  lunatic  lover. 

XA  tragedy  (1610?)  by  Beaumont  and  Fletcher.  The  usual 
cast  was,  according  to  Downes  (Roscius  Anglicanus,  p.  5) : 
Amintor,  Hart;  Melantius,  Mohun;  the  King,  Wintersell; 
Calianax,  Shotterel;  Evadne,  Mrs.  Marshall  [Rebecca]  ;  Aspatia, 
Mrs.  Boutel. 


OTHER  PRE-RESTORATION  PLAYS  93 

and  well  acted,  especially  by  the  younger  Marshall,2 
who  is  become  a  pretty  good  actor,  and  is  the  first 
play  I  have  seen  in  either  of  the  houses,  since  before 
the  great  plague,3  they  having  acted  now  about  four- 
teen days  publickly.  But  I  was  in  mighty  pain,  lest 
I  should  be  seen  by  anybody  to  be  at  a  play. 

February  18,  1666-67.  To  the  Duke  of  York's 
play-house,  expecting  a  new  play,  and  so  stayed  not 
more  than  other  people,  but  to  the  King's  house,  to 
"The  Mayd's  Tragedy";  but  vexed  all  the  while  with 
two  talking  ladies  and  Sir  Charles  Sedley. 

April  15,  1668.  To  the  King's  playhouse,  into  a 
corner  of  the  ISd.  box,  and  there  saw  "The  Maid's 
Tragedy,"  a  good  play,  .  .  .  play  and  oranges  2s.  6d. 

May  9,  1668.  Into  the  King's  house,  and  there 
"The  Mayd's  Tragedy,"  a  good  play,  but  Knepp  not 
there. 

2  Rebecca  Marshall. 

3  The   last    play    that    Pepys    mentioned    seeing   at    a    public 
theatre  before  the  plague  was  Love's  Mistress,  at  the  King's 
house,  May  15,  1665.     R.  W.  Lowe   (Thomas  Betterton,   1891 
ed.,  p.  103)  states  that  the  edict  requiring  the  closing  during  the 
plague  "remained  in  force  for  about  a  year  and  a  half."    Appar- 
ently the  reason  why   Pepys   did  not  wish  to  be  seen   at  the 
theatre  was  that  he  felt  that  his  presence  there  was  owing  to  his 
weakness  for  plays,  which  he  had  reason  to  think  might  still  be 
dangerous  to  the  public.     On  November  20,  he  refers  to  "the 
thanksgiving-day   for  the   cessation   of   the   plague;   but   Lord! 
how  the  towne  do  say  that  it  is  hastened  before  the  plague  is 
quite  over,  there  dying  some  people  still,  but  only  to  get  ground 
for  plays  to  be  publickly  acted,  which  the  Bishop  would  not 
suffer  till  the  plague  was  over." 


94   PEPYS  ON  THE  RESTORATION  STAGE 

[Beaumont  and]  Fletcher  and  Rowley 

THE  MAID  IN  THE  MILL 

January  29,  1660-61.  Went  to  Blackfryers1  (the 
first  time  I  ever  was  there  since  plays  begun),  and 
there  after  great  patience  and  little  expectation,  from 
so  poor  beginning,  I  saw  three  acts  of  "The  Mayd  in 
ye  Mill,"2  acted  to  my  great  content. 

April  1,  1662.  To  the  playhouse,  the  Opera,  and 
saw  "The  Mayde  in  the  Mill,"  a  pretty  good  play. 

September  10,  1668.  At  the  Duke's  play-house, 
and  there  saw  "The  Maid  in  the  Mill,"  revived — a 
pretty,  harmless  old  play. 


Beaumont  and  Fletcher 

PHILASTER,  OR,  LOVE  LIES  A-BLEEDING 

November  18,  1661.  To  the  Theatre  to  see 
"Philaster,"1  which  I  never  saw  before,  but  I  found 
it  far  short  of  my  expectations. 

May  30, 1668.    To  the  King's  playhouse,  and  there 

1  To  the   theatre   on   the   site   of  Apothecaries'   Hall,   Black- 
friars. 

2  A  comedy  (1623)  by  Fletcher  and  William  Rowley.     "This 
Play,"  says  Langbaine   (p.  211),  "amongst  others  has  likewise 
been  reviv'd  by  the  Duke's  House." 

1  A  tragi-comedy  (1609?)  by  Beaumont  and  Fletcher.  Lang- 
baine notes  (p.  213):  "This  Play  was  One  of  those  that  were 
represented  at  the  old  Theatre  in  Lincolns-Inn-Fields,  when  the 
women  acted  alone." 


OTHER  PRE-RESTORATION  PLAYS  95 

saw  "Philaster"  ;2  where  it  is  pretty  to  see  how  I 
could  remember  almost  all  along,  ever  since  I  was  a 
boy,  Arethusa,3  the  part  which  I  was  to  have  acted  at 
Sir  Robert  Cooke's;  and  it  was  very  pleasant  to  me, 
but  more  to  think  what  a  ridiculous  thing  it  would 
have  been  for  me  to  have  acted  a  beautiful  woman. 


[Beaumont  and]  Fletcher 

THE  BLOODY  BROTHER,  OR  HOLLO,  DUKE  OF 

NORMANDY 

March  28,  1661.  Then  ...  to  the  Theatre  and 
saw  "Rollo"1  ill  acted. 

April  17,  1667.  To  the  King's  playhouse  .  .  . 
and  saw  a  piece  of  "Rollo,"  a  play  I  like  not  much, 
but  much  good  acting  in  it;2  the  house  very  empty. 

September  17,  1668.  To  the  King's  playhouse, 
and  saw  "Rollo,  Duke  of  Normandy,"  which  for  old 

2  In  this  year  Hart  played  Philaster,  and  Nell  Gwyn,   Bel- 
lario — according  to  Genest  (I,  82). 

3  The  Princess  Arethusa,  with  whom  Philaster  is  in  love. 

1  The  Bloody  Brother,  or  Rollo,  Duke  of  Normandy,  a  tragedy 
by  Fletcher  and,  perhaps,  William  Rowley,  Jonson,  and  others, 
was  printed  in  1639. 

2  In  the  cast  (Roscius  Anglicanus,  pp.  5-6)  were  Hart  (in  the 
title  part),  Kynaston   (as   Otto),   Mohun   (Aubrey),   Burt    (La 
Torch),  Mrs.  Marshall  (Edith),  and  Mrs.  Corey  (the  Duchess). 
From  James  Wright's  Historia  Histrionica,  1699  (in  Dodsley's 
Old  English  Plays,  Hazlitt  ed.,  XV,  409),  we  learn  that  Hart 
and  Burt  were  in  the  cast  of  the  surreptitious  performance  of 
this  play  at  the  Cockpit  in  1648,  when  the  theatre  was  attacked 
by  a  "party  of  foot-soldiers  who  arrested  the  actors." 


96   PEPYS  ON  THE  RESTORATION  STAGE 

acquaintance,  pleased  me  pretty  well,  and  so  home 
and  to  my  business. 


[Beaumont  and]  Fletcher 

RULE  A  WIFE  AND  HAVE  A  WIFE 

April  1, 1661.  Then  to  Whitefryars,  and  there  saw 
part  of  "Rule  a  wife  and  have  a  wife,1  which  I  never 
saw  before,  but  do  not  like  it. 

February  5y  1661-62.  I  and  my  wife  to  the  Thea- 
tre .  .  .  and  there  saw  "Rule  a  Wife  and  have  a 
Wife"  very  well  done. 


Beaumont  and  Fletcher  THE  SCORNFUL  LADY 

November  27,  1660.  To  a  play,— "The  Scornfull 
Lady,"1  and  that  being  done,  I  went  homewards. 

January  4,  1660-61.  Mr.  Moore  and  I  to  the 
Theatre,  where  was  "The  Scornful  Lady,"  acted  very 
well. 

1  A  comedy  (1624)  by  John  Fletcher.  Genest  (I,  45)  states 
that  the  cast  as  given  by  Downes  (Don  Leon,  Mohun;  Perez, 
Hart;  Cacafago,  Clun;  Don  John,  Burt;  Estifania,  Mrs.  Boutel; 
Margareta,  Mrs.  Marshall)  "must  be  that  of  1663  or  1664," 
but  does  not  note  earlier  performances. 

1  A  comedy  (1609)  by  Beaumont  and  Fletcher,  acted  probably 
by  the  King's  company  as  in4he  later  references.  Evelyn  saw 
it  soon  afterwards.  Under  January  25,  1660-61  he  writes  as 
follows:  "After  divers  yeares  since  I  had  seen  any  play,  I  went 
to  see  acted  'The  Scornful  Lady'  at  a  new  theater  in  Lincoln's 
Inn  Fields"  (Diary,  Wheatley  ed.,  II,  122). 


OTHER  PRE-RESTORATION  PLAYS  97 

February  12,  1660-61.  By  water  to  Salsbury 
Court  playhouse,  where  not  liking  to  sit  we  went  out 
\  again,  and  by  coach  to  the  Theatre,  and  there  saw 
"The  Scornfull  Lady,"  now  done  by  a  woman,2  which 
makes  the  play  appear  much  better  than  ever  it  did  to 
me. 

>  November  17,  1662.  To  the  Cockpitt  [White-  v 
hall],  and  we  had  excellent  places  and  saw  the  King, 
Queen,  Duke  of  Monmouth,  his  son,  and  my  Lady 
^-  Castlemaine,  and  all  the  fine  ladies;  and  "The  Scorn- 
full  Lady,"  well  performed.  They  had  done  by 
eleven  o'clock. 

December  27, 1666.  To  the  King's  playhouse,  and 
meeting  Creed  took  him  up,  and  there  saw  "The 
Scornfull  Lady"  well  acted;  Doll  Common  doing 
Abigail  most  excellently,  and  Knipp  the  widow  very 
well,  and  will  be  an  excellent  actor,  I  think.  In  other 
parts  the  play  not  so  well  done  as  used  to  be  by  the 
old  actors. 

September  16, 1667.  To  the  King's  play-house,  to 
see  "The  Scornfull  Lady";  but  it  being  now  three 
o'clock3  there  was  not  one  soul  in  the  pit,  whereupon, 
,  for  shame,  we  would  not  go  in,  but,  against  our  wills,  • 
went  all  to  see  "Tu  Quoque"4  again  .  .  i  Thence  to 
the  King's  house,  upon  a  wager  with  my  wife,  that 
there  would  be  no  acting  there  to-day,  there  being  no 

2  Downes    (Roscius  Anglicanus,  p.   6)    gives  the  cast  of  the 
women's  parts,  probably  for  the  1666  performance:  "The  Lady, 
Mrs.  Marshal;  Martha,  Mrs.  Rutter;  Abigail,  Mrs.  Corey." 

3  Plays  at  the  public  theatres  began  at  three-thirty,  according 
to  the  Prologue  to  Dryden's  The  Wild  Gallant  (1663). 

4  See  p.  104  for  a  description  of  this  performance. 


98   PEPYS  ON  THE  RESTORATION  STAGE 

company ;  so  I  went  in  and  found  a  pretty  good  com- 
pany there,  and  saw  their  dance  at  the  end  of  the 
play. 

June  S3  1668.    To  the  King's  house  and  there  saw 
good  part  of  "The  Scornfull  Lady." 


[Beaumont  and]  Fletcher  and  Massinger  (?) 

THE  SPANISH  CURATE 

March  16,  1660-61.  So  to  Whitefriars  and  saw 
"The  Spanish  Curate,"1  in  which  I  had  no  great 
content. 

January  13  1661-62.  Seeing  that  the  "Spanish 
Curate"  was  acted,  .  .  .  sent  to  young  Mr.  Pen  to 
go  with  my  wife  and  I  to  the  Theatre,  .  .  .  and  by 
and  by  came  the  two  young  Pens,  and  after  we  had 
eat  a  barrel  of  oysters  we  went  by  coach  to  the  play, 
and  there  saw  it  well  acted,  and  a  good  play  it  is, 
only  Diego  the  Sexton  did  overdo  his  part  too  much. 
From  thence  home,  and  they  sat  with  us  till  late  at 
night  at  cards  very  merry,  but  the  jest  was  Mr. 
W.  Pen2  had  left  his  sword  in  the  coach. 

May  17, 1669.  To  the  King's  playhouse,3  and  saw 
"The  Spanish  Curate"  revived,  which  is  a  pretty  good 
play,  but  my  eyes  troubled  with  seeing  it  mightily. 

1  A  comedy  (1622)  by  Fletcher  and  Massinger  (?).     The  cast 
is  not  given  by  Downes  or  Genest. 

2  This  was  William  Penn,  the  Quaker,  founder  of  Pennsyl- 
vania. 

3  For  the  last  performance   mentioned   in   the  Diary,   which 


OTHER  PRE-RESTORATION  PLAYS  99 

[Beaumont  and]  Fletcher  and  Massinger  (?) 

THE  STORM  (THE  SEA  VOYAGE) 

'  September  25,  1667.  To  the  King's  playhouse. 
.  .  .  The  play  was  a  new  play;  and  infinitely  full; 
the  King  and  all  the  Court  almost  there.  It  is  "The 
Storme,"1  a  play  of  Fletcher's;  which  is  but  so-so, 
..methinks ;  only  there  is  a  most  admirable  dance  at  the 
end,  of  the  ladies,  in  a  military  manner,  which  indeed 
did  please  me  mightily. 

September  26,  1667.  With  my  wife  abroad  to  the 
;  King's  playhouse,  to  shew  her  yesterday's  new  play, 
jwhich  I  like  as  I  did  yesterday,  the  principal  thing 
extraordinary  being  the  dance,  which  is  very  good. 

March  25,  1668.  To  the  King's  playhouse,  to  see 
"The  Storme,"  which  we  did,  but  without  much  pleas- 
ure, it  being  but  a  mean  play  compared  with  "The 
Tempest,"  at  the  Duke  of  York's  house,  though 
Knepp  did  act  her  part2  of  grief  very  well. 

May  16, 1668.  To  the  King's  playhouse  and  there 
saw  the  best  part  of  "The  Sea  Voyage,"  where  Knepp 
I  see  do  her  part  of  sorrow  very  well. 

Pepys  brought  to  a  close  on  May  31,  from  the  fear  that  he  was 
losing  his  eyesight.  Happily,  his  fears  for  his  eyes  proved  to 
be  groundless. 

XA  comedy  (1622)  by  Fletcher  and  Massinger  (?)  with 
superficial  resemblances  to  The  Tempest — called  by  Pepys  on 
May  16,  1668,  The  Sea  Voyage.  For  The  Widow,  in  which 
Fletcher  is  said  to  have  collaborated  with  Jonson  and  Middleton, 
see  p.  119. 

2  "Mrs.  Knipp  acted  Aminta"  (Genest,  I,  81). 


100     PEPYS  ON  THE  RESTORATION  STAGE 
[Beaumont  and]  Fletcher    THE  WILD  GOOSE  CHASE 

January  11,  1667-68.  To  the  King's  house,  there 
to  see  "The  Wild-goose  Chase,"1  which  I  never  saw, 
but  have  longed  to  see  it,  being  a  famous  play,  but  as 
it  was  yesterday  I  do  find  that  where  I  expect  most  I 
find  least  satisfaction,  for  in  this  play  I  met  with 
nothing  extraordinary  at  all,  but  very  dull  inventions 
and  designs. 


{  [Beaumont  and]  Fletcher       WIT  WITHOUT  MONEY 

^October  16,  1660.  And  so  ...  to  the  Cockpit, 
where,  understanding  that  "Wit  without  money"1 
was  acted,  I  would  not  stay. 

April  22,  1663.  To  the  King's  Playhouse,  where 
we  saw  but  part  of  "Witt  without  mony,"  which  I 
do  not  like  much,  but  coming  late  put  me  out  of  tune, 
and  it  costing  me  four  half-crowns  for  myself  and 
company. 

1  A  comedy  (1621)  by  John  Fletcher.  It  is  mentioned  in  the 
list  of  plays  performed  by  Killigrew's  company,  given  in 
Malone's  Shakspeare,  Vol.  I,  Part  II,  p.  266,  as  having  been 
acted  in  February,  1661. 

*A  comedy  (1614)  by  John  Fletcher.  Langbaine  (p.  216) 
mentions  having  seen  it  "acted  at  the  Old  House  in  little  Lin- 
colns-Inn-Fields  with  very  great  applause;  the  part  of  Valentine 
being  play'd  by  that  compleat  Actor  Major  Mohun  deceas'd." 
This  performance  Was  probably  at  the  Drury  Lane  Cockpit. 


OTHER  PRE-RESTORATION  PLAYS          101 

[Beaumont  and]  Fletcher 

THE  WOMAN'S  PRIZE,  OR  THE  TAMER  TAMED 

October  30,  1660.  In  the  afternoon,  to  ease  my 
mind,  I  went  to  the  Cockpit  all  alone,  and  there  saw 
a  very  fine  play  called  "The  Tamer  tamed";1  very 
well  acted. 

July  31,  1661.  In  the  afternoon  I  went  to  the 
Theatre,  and  there  I  saw  "The  Tamer  Tamed"  well 
done. 


[Beaumont  and]  Fletcher  WOMEN  PLEASED 

December  26,  1668.  To  a  play,  at  the  Duke  of 
York's  house,  the  house  full  of  ordinary  citizens.  The 
play  was  "Women  Pleased,"1  which  we  had  never 
seen  before;  and,  though  but  indifferent,  yet  there  is 
a  good  design  for  a  good  play. 


Brome,  Richard  THE  ANTIPODES 

August  26,  1661.  To  the  Theatre,  and  saw  the 
"Antipodes,"1  wherein  there  is  much  mirth,  but  no 
great  matter  else. 

*A  comedy  (1606?)  in  continuation  of  The  Taming  of  the 
Shrew,  by  John  Fletcher,  acted  probably  at  the  Cockpit,  Drury 
Lane,  as  plays  at  the  Whitehall  Cockpit  were  performed  in  the 
evening.  It  is  also  in  the  list  of  plays  acted  at  the  Drury  Lane 
Cockpit  given  in  Roscius  Anglicanus,  p.  18. 

1A  loosely  constructed  tragi-comedy  (1620?)  by  John 
Fletcher. 

1  A  comedy  (1630)  by  Richard  Brome. 


102  PEPYS  ON  THE  RESTORATION  STAGE 

Broirie,  Richard 

THE  JOVIAL  CREW,  OR  THE  MERRY  BEGGARS 

July  25,  1661.  To  the  Theatre,  and  saw  "The 
Jovial  Crew,"1  the  first  time  I  saw  it,  and  indeed  it 
is  as  merry  and  the  most  innocent  play  that  ever  I 
saw,  and  wel}  performed. 

r  August  27,  1661.  Hence  my  wife  and  I  to  the 
Theatre,  and  there  saw  "The  Joviall  Crew,"  where 
th'e^King,  Duke  and  Duchess,  and  Madame  Palmer, 
were,  and  my  wife,  to  her  great  content,  had  a  full 
sight  of  them  all  the  while.  The  play  full  of  mirth. 

November  1,  1661.  To  the  Theatre,  to  "The 
Joviall  Crew." 

January  11,  1668-69.  To  the  King's  playhouse, 
and  there  saw  "The  Joviall  Crew";  but  ill  acted  to 
what  it  was  heretofore,  in  Chin's  time,  and  when  Lacy 
could  dance. 


Brome,  Richard       THE  NORTHERN  CASTLE  [LASS?] 

September  14,  1667.  To  the  King's  playhouse  to 
see  "The  Northerne  Castle,"1  which  I  think  I  never 

1A  comedy  (1641)  by  Richard  Brome,  listed  by  Dowries 
(Roscius  Anglicanus,  p.  8)  among  the  "Principal  Old  Stock 
Plays"  of  the  King's  theatre. 

1  No  play  so  called  is  known.  The  play  which  is  nearest  to 
it  in  point  of  title  is  Richard's  Brome's  comedy,  The  Northern 
Lass,  printed  in  1632;  it  has  a  pathetic  heroine,  Constance  (the 
Northern  Lass).  That  this  was  in  the  repertory  of  the  King's 
company,  we  know  from  the  list  of  plays  given  in  Malone's 
Shakspeare,  Vol.  I,  Part  II,  p.  267,  according  to  which  it  was 


OTHER  PRE-RESTORATION  PLAYS          103 

did  see  before.  Knipp  acted  in  it,  and  did  her  part 
very  extraordinary  well;  but  the  play  is  but  a  mean, 
sorry  play;  but  the  house  very  full  of  gallants.  It 
seems,  it  hath  not  been  acted  a  good  while. 


Chapman,  George  BTJSSY  D'AMBOIS 

December  30,  1661.  My  wife  has  been  at  a  play 
to-day  and  saw  "D'Ambois,"1  which  I  never  saw. 

November  15,  1662.  After  reading  part  of  Bussy 
d'Ambois,  a  good  play  I  bought  to-day,  to  bed. 


Cooke,  John       Tu  QUOQUE,  OR  THE  CITY  GALLANT 

September  12,  1667.  At  the  Duke's  house,  where 
"Tu  Quoque"1  was  the  first  time  acted,  with  some 

acted  on  April  4,  1662;  and  also  from  Langbaine,  who  says 
(p.  36)  that  The  Northern  Lass  was  "acted  with  great  Applause 
at  the  Theatre  Royal,  by  his  Majestie's  Servants,  printed  in 
quarto,  Lond.  1663."  W.  C.  Hazlitt  states  (A  Manual  for  the 
Collector  and  Amateur  of  Old  English  Plays,  p.  168)  that  "the 
4to  of  1663  describes  it  as  acted  with  great  applause  at  the 
Theatre  Royal;  and  it  seems  to  be  the  piece  intended  by  Pepys, 
where  he  speaks  of  the  Northern  Castle,  under  the  date  of 
September  14,  1667." 

*A  tragedy  (1595-1600)  by  George  Chapman — "since  the 
Restauration  of  King  Charles  the  Second,"  says  Langbaine  (pp. 
60-61),  "acted  at  the  Theatre-Royal  with  good  applause."  In 
the  list  of  plays  performed  by  Killigrew's  company,  in  Malone's 
Shakspeare,  Vol.  I,  Part  II,  p.  267,  this  play  is  mentioned  as 
having  been  given  on  this  date.  According  to  Genest  (I,  351), 
Hart  usually  took  the  title  part. 

1  A  comedy  by  John  Cooke,  in  which  the  role  of  Bubble  was 


104  PEPYS  ON  THE  RESTORATION  STAGE 

alterations  of  Sir  W.  Davenant's;  but  the  play  is  a 
very  silly  play,  methinks:  for  I,  and  others  that  sat 
by  me,  Mr.  Povy  and  Mr.  Progers,  were  weary  of  it ; 
but  it  will  please  the  citizens. 

September  16, 1667.  Against  our  wills,  went  all  to 
see  "Tu  Quoque"  again,  where  there  is  pretty  store 
of  company,  and  going  with  a  prejudice  the  play 
appeared  better  to  us.  Here  we  saw  Madam  More- 
land,2  who  is  grown  mighty  fat,  but  is  very  comely. 
But  one  of  the  best  parts  of  our  sport  was  a  mighty 
pretty  lady  that  sat  behind  us,  that  did  laugh  so 
heartily  and  constantly  that  it  did  me  good  to  hear 
her. 


Ford,  John  THE  LADY'S  TRIAL 

March  3,  1668-69.  To  the  Duke  of  York's  play- 
house, and  there  saw  an  old  play,  the  first  time  acted 
these  forty  years,  called  "The  Lady's  Tryall,"1  acted 
only  by  the  young  people  of  the  house ;  but  the  house 
very  full.  But  it  is  but  a  sorry  play,  and  the  worse 
by  how  much  my  head  is  out  of  humour  by  being  a 
little  sleepy. 

4 

immortalized  by  Thomas  Greene,  printed  in  1614;  it  is  men- 
tioned by  Downes  (Roscius  Anglicanus,  p.  26)  as  having  been 
acted  at  the  Duke's  theatre  between  1662  and  1665.  It  was 
revived  in  1667  with  "alterations"  by  D'Avenant.  (Cf.  A  Man- 
ual for  the  Collector  and  Amateur  of  Old  English  Plays,  by 
W.  C.  Hazlitt,  p.  99.) 

2  The  wife  of  Sir  Samuel  Moreland,  and  daughter  of  the  Baron 
of  Boissay. 

XA  tragi-comedy   (1638)  by  John  Ford. 


OTHER  PRE-RESTORATION  PLAYS          105 
Ford,  John  'Tis  PITY  SHE'S  A  WHORE 

September  9,  1661.     Thence  to  Salisbury  Court  >' 
playhouse,  where  was  acted  the  first  time  "  'Tis  pity 
Shee's  a  Whore,"1  a  simple  play  and  ill  acted,  only 
it  was   my   fortune  to    sit   by   a  most   pretty   and 
most  ingenious  lady,  which  pleased  me  much. 


Glapthorne,  Henry  ARGALUS  AND  PARTHENIA 

January  31,  1660-61.  To  the  Theatre  and  there 
sat  in  the  pit  among  the  company  of  fine  ladys,  &c.; 
and  the  house  was  exceeding  full,  to  see  Argalus  and 
Parthenia,1  the  first  time  it  hath  been  acted;  and 
indeed  it  is  good,  though  wronged  by  my  over  great 
expectations,  as  all  things  else  are. 

February  5, 1660-61.  I  went  by  coach  to  the  play- 
house at  the  Theatre,  our  coach  in  King  Street  break- 
ing^ and  so  took  another.  Here  we  saw  Argalus  and 
Parthenia,  which  I  lately  saw,  but  though  pleasant 
for  dancing  and  singing,  I  do  not  find  good  for  any 
wit  or  design  therein. 

October  28,  1661.  To  the  Theatre,  and  there  saw 
"Argalus  and  Parthenia,"  where  a  woman  acted 
Parthenia,2  and  came  afterwards  on  the  stage  in 

1  A  tragedy  (1626?)  by  John  Ford. 

1  A  pastoral  drama  (1638?)  by  Henry  Glapthorne,  based  upon 
an  episode  in  Sidney's  Arcadia  (Book  III).     This  performance 
is  also  mentioned  in  the  list  of  plays  acted  by  Killigrew's  com- 
pany, given  in  Malone's  Shakspeare,  Vol.  I,  Part  II,  p.  266. 

2  Downes  does  not  record  the  cast  for  this  play. 


106  PEPYS  ON  THE  RESTORATION  STAGE 

men's  clothes,  and  had  the  best  legs  that  ever  I  saw, 
and  I  was  very  well  pleased  with  it. 


Glapthorne,  Henry  WIT  IN  A  CONSTABLE 

May  23, 1662.  To  the  Opera,  where  we  saw  "Witt 
in  a  Constable,"1  the  first  time  that  it  is  acted;  but 
so  silly  a  play  I  never  saw  I  think  in  my  life. 


Habington,  William 

CLEODORA,  THE  QUEEN  OF  ARRAGON 

October  19,  1668.  To  the  Duke  of  York's  play- 
house; and  there  saw,  the  first  time  acted,  "The 
Queene  of  Arragon,"  an  old  Blackfriars'  play,1  but 
an  admirable  one,  so  good  that  I  am  astonished  at  it, 
and  wonder  where  it  hath  lain  asleep  all  this  while, 
that  I  have  never  heard  of  it  before. 

October  20,  1668.  So  to  my  tailor's,  and  the  New 
Exchange,  and  so  by  coach  home,  and  there,  having 
this  day  bought  "The  Queene  of  Arragon"  play,  I 
did  get  my  wife  and  W.  B  atelier  to  read  it  over  this 
night  by  11  o'clock. 

1 A  comedy  (1639)  by  Henry  Glapthorne,  mentioned  by 
Downes  (Roscius  Anglicanus,  p.  26)  among  the  plays  performed 
by  the  Duke's  company  between  1662  and  1665. 

1 A  tragi-comedy  by  William  Habington,  staged  with  great 
expense  at  Blackfriars  in  1640.  Downes  (Roscius  Anglicanus, 
p.  29)  merely  notes  that  it  was  acted  at  the  Duke's  house  subse- 
quent to  Etherege's  She  Would  if  She  Could. 


OTHER  PRE-RESTORATION  PLAYS          107  - 

Heywood,  Thomas 

LOVE'S  MISTRESS,  OR  THE  QUEEN'S  MASQUE 

March  2,  1660-61.  After  dinner  I  went  to  the 
Theatre,  where  I  found  so  few  people  (which  is 
strange,  and  the  reason  I  did  not  know)  that  I  went 
out  again,  and  so  to  Salsbury  Court,  where  the  house 
as  full  as  could  be;  and  it  seems  it  was  a  new  play, 
"The  Queen's  Maske,"1  wherein  there  are  some  good 
humours:  among  others,  a  good  jeer  to  the  old  story 
of  the  Siege  of  Troy,  making  it  a  common  country 
tale.  But  above  all  it  was  strange  to  see  so  little  a 
boy  as  that  was  to  act  Cupid,  which  is  one  of  the 
greatest  parts  in  it. 

March  11 , 1660-61.  To  the  Theatre,  and  there  saw 
"Love's  Mistress"  done  by  them,  which  I  do  not  like 
in  some  things  as  well  as  their  acting  in  Salsbury 
Court. 

March  25,  1661.  To  Salisbury  Court  by  water, 
and  saw  part  of  the  "Queene's  Maske." 

May  15, 1665.  To  the  King's  playhouse,  all  alone, 
and  'saw  "Love's  Maistresse."  Some  pretty  things 
and  good  variety  in  it,  but  no  or  little  fancy  in  it. 

August  15,  1668.  To  the  King's  playhouse,  and 
there  saw  "Love's  Mistresse"  revived,  the  thing 
pretty  good,  but  full  of  variety  of  divertisement. 

1  An  allegorical  drama  (1634)  by  Thomas  Heywood,  origi- 
nally produced  by  Inigo  Jones. 


108     PEPYS  ON  THE  RESTORATION  STAGE 

Heywood,  Thomas 

IF  You  KNOW  NOT  ME,  You  KNOW  NOBODY, 
OR  THE  TROUBLES  OF  QUEEN  ELIZABETH 

August  17, 1667.  To  the  King's  playhouse,  where 
the  house  extraordinary  full ;  and  there  was  the  King 
and  Duke  of  York  to  see  the  new  play,  "Queen  Eliza- 
beth's Troubles,  and  the  History  of  Eighty  Eight."1 
I  confess  I  have  sucked  in  so  much  of  the  sad  story 
of  Queen  Elizabeth,  from  my  cradle,  that  I  was  ready 
to  weep  for  her  sometimes;  but  the  play  is  the  most 
ridiculous  that  sure  ever  come  upon  the  stage;  and, 
indeed,  is  merely  a  shew,  only  shews  the  true  garbe 
of  the  Queen  in  those  days,  just  as  we  see  Queen 
Mary  and  Queen  Elizabeth  painted;  but  the  play  is 
merely  a  puppet  play,  acted  by  living  puppets.  Nei- 
ther the  design  nor  language  better;  and  one  stands 
by  and  tells  us  the  meaning  of  things:  only  I  was 
pleased  to  see  Knipp  dance  among  the  milkmaids, 
and  to  hear  her  sing  a  song  to  Queen  Elizabeth ;  and 
to  see  her  come  out  in  her  night-gowne  with  no  lockes 
on. 

*An  historical  play  in  two  parts  (1604-1605)  by  Thomas 
Heywood.  W.  C.  Hazlitt  comments  with  reference  to  this  entry 
that  the  play  "was  probably  altered  by  some  later  hand,  and 
the  recent  Dutch  invasion  had  doubtless  suggested  its  revival" 
(A  Manual  for  the  Collector  and  Amateur  of  Old  English  Plays, 
p.  113). 


OTHER  PRE-RESTORATION  PLAYS          109 
Jonson,  Ben  THE  ALCHEMIST 

June    22,    1661.      Then    to    the    Theatre,    "The^" 
Alchymist,"1  which  is  a  most  incomparable  play. 

August  14,  1661.  To  the  Theatre,  and  there  saw 
"The  Alchymist." 

August  4,  1664.  We  hear  that  Chin,  one  of  their 
best  actors,  was,  the  last  night,  going  out  of  towne 
'(after  he  had  acted  the  Alchymist,  wherein  was  one 
of  his  best  parts)  ...  set  upon  and  murdered.  ^J^1 

April  17,  1669.  Learning  that  "The  Alchymist," 
was  acted,  we  did  go,  and  took  him  [Pierce]  with  us 
to  the  King's  house ;  and  it  is  still  a  good  play,  having 
not  been  acted  for  two  or  three  years  before;  but  I 
do  miss  Clun,  for  the  Doctor.2 


Jonson,  Ben  BARTHOLOMEW  FAIR 

June  8,  1661.  To  the  Theatre  and  there  saw 
"Bartholomew  Faire,"1  the  first  time  it  was  acted 
now-a-days.  It  is  a  most  admirable  play  and  well 
acted,  but  too  much  prophane  and  abusive. 

XA  comedy  (1610)  by  Ben  Jonson. 

2  Clearly,  Subtle,  the  alchemist.  The  cast  given  by  Downes 
(Roscius  Anglicanus,  pp.  4-5)  was  probably  the  cast  of  this 
revival,  and  not,  as  Genest  hazards,  that  of  the  1664  perform- 
ance. In  it  Wintersell  acted  Clun's  old  part  of  Subtle,  and 
Mohun,  Lacy,  Cartwright,  Burt,  and  Mrs.  Corey  (in  the  part 
of  Doll  Common),  were  in  the  cast. 

1  A  comedy  (1614)  by  Ben  Jonson,  which  was  popular  on  its 
revival  after  the  Restoration  partly  because  of  its  abuse  of  the 
Puritans.  To  Pepys,  "the  Puritan  tailor's  son,"  it  was  natural 
that  it  should  have  seemed  too  "prophane." 


110  PEPYS  ON  THE  RESTORATION  STAGE 

June  27,  1661.  We  went  and  saw  "Bartholomew 
Fayre"  acted  very  well. 

September  7 ' ,  1661.  I  having  appointed  the  young 
ladies  at  the  Wardrobe2  to  go  with  them  to  the  play 
to-day,  .  .  .  my  wife  and  I  took  them  to  the  Theatre, 
where  we  seated  ourselves  close  by  the  King,  and 
Duke  of  York,  and  Madame  Palmer,  which  was  great 
content;  and,  indeed,  I  can  never  enough  admire  her 
beauty.  And  here  was  "Bartholomew  Fayre,"  with 
the  puppet-show,3  acted  to-day,  which  had  not  been 
these  forty  years,  (it  being  so  satyricall  against  Puri- 
tanism, they  durst  not  till  now,  which  is  strange  they 
should  already  dare  to  do  it,  and  the  King  to  counte- 
nance it ) ,  but  I  do  never  a  whit  like  it  the  better  for 
the  puppets,  but  rather  the  worse.  Thence  home  with 
the  ladies,  it  being  by  reason  of  our  staying  for  the 
King's  coming,  and  the  length  of  the  play,  near  nine 
o'clock  before  it  was  done. 

August  2, 1664.  Thence  to  the  King's  play-house, 
and  there  saw  "Bartholomew  Fayre,"  which  do  still 
please  me;  and  is,  as  it  is  acted,  the  best  comedy  in 
the  world,  I  believe.  I  chanced  to  sit  by  Tom  Killi- 
grew. 

September  4,  1668.  To  the  Fair:  ...  my  wife 
having  a  mind  to  see  the  play  "Bartholomew-Fayre," 
with  puppets.  Which  we  did,  and  it  is  an  excellent 
play ;  the  more  I  see  it,  the  more  I  love  the  wit  of  it ; 

2  The  daughters  of  Pepys's  patron,   Lord  Sandwich. 

3  The  Modern  History  of  Hero  and  Leander,  in  Act  V.     From 
Pepys's  comment  on  this  occasion,  we  infer  that  the  puppet-show 
had  been  omitted  from  the  presentations  of  the  play  on  June 
8  and  June  27  of  this  year. 


OTHER  PRE-RESTORATION  PLAYS          111 

only  the  business  of  abusing  the  Puritans  begins  to 
grow  stale,  and  of  no  use,  they  being  the  people  that, 
at  last,  will  be  found  the  wisest. 

February  22,  1668-69.  To  White  Hall,  ...  and 
there  by  and  by  come  the  King  and  Queen,  and  they 
begin  "Bartholomew  Fayre."  But  I  like  no  play 
here  so  well  as  at  the  common  playhouse. 


Jonson,  Ben  CATILINE,,  HIS  CONSPIRACY 

December  18,  1664.  Then  to  my  chamber  to  read 
Ben  Jonson's  Cataline,1  a  very  excellent  piece. 

December  7,  1667.  She  tells  us  that  Catelin  is 
likely  to  be  soon  acted,  which  I  am  glad  to  hear,  but 
it  is  at  the  King's  house.  But  the  King's  house  is  at 
present  and  hath  for  some  days  been  silenced  upon 
some  difference  [between]  Hart  and  Moone. 

December  11,  1667.  I  met  Rolt  and  Sir  John 
Chichly,  and  Harris,  the  player,  and  there  we  talked 
of  many  things,  and  particularly  of  "Catiline,"  which 
is  to  be  suddenly  acted  at  the  King's  house ;  and  there 
all  agree  that  it  cannot  be  well  done  at  that  house, 
there  not  being  good  actors  enow:  and  Burt  acts 
Cicero,2  which  they  all  conclude  he  will  not  be  able  to 

*A  tragedy  (1611)  by  Ben  Jonson.  Evelyn  saw  it  on  De- 
cember 19,  1668.  He  records:  "I  went  to  see  ye  old  play  of 
Cataline  acted,  having  ben  now  forgotten  almost  40  yeares" 
(Diary,  Wheatley  ed.,  II,  233). 

2  Cicero  became,  however,  one  of  Burt's  most  popular  parts. 
Hart  was  Catiline;  Mohun,  Cethegus;  and  Mrs.  Corey,  Sem- 
pronia.  (Genest,  I,  84.) 


112  PEPYS  ON  THE  RESTORATION  STAGE 

do  well.    The  King  gives  them  £500  for  robes,  there 
being,  as  they  say,  to  be  sixteen  scarlett  robes. 

January  11,  1667-68.  She  [Knepp]  told  me  also 
of  ...  "Catelin,"  which  she  thinks,  for  want  of  the 
clothes  which  the  King  promised  them,  will  not  be 
a^ted  for  a  good  while. 

^December  19, 1668.  To  the  King's  playhouse,  and 
there,  the  pit  being  full,  sat  in  a  box  above,  and  saw 
"Catiline's  Conspiracy,"  yesterday  being  the  first 
day:  a  play  of  much  good  sense  and  words  to  read, 
but  that  do  appear  the  worst  upon  the  stage,  I  mean, 
the  least  diverting,  that  ever  I  saw  any,  though  most 
in  fine  clothes ;  and  a  fine  scene  of  the  Senate,  and  of 
a  fight,  that  ever  I  saw  in  my  life.  But  the  play  is 
only  to  be  read. 


Jonson,  Ben  THE  DEVIL  is  AN  Ass 

July  22, 1663.    So  down  to  Deptford,  reading  Ben 
Jonson's  "Devil  is  an  asse."1 


Jonson,  Ben      EPICOENE,  OR  THE  SILENT  WOMAN 

June  6, 1660.  My  letters  tell  me  ...  that  the  two 
Dukes  [York  and  Gloucester]  .  .  .  were  at  a  play, 
Madame  Epicene,1  the  other  day. 

*A  comedy  (1616)  by  Ben  Jonson,  mentioned  among  the 
"Principal  Old  Stock  Plays"  of  the  King's  company  in  Roscius 
Anglicanus,  p.  8. 

1  Epicoene,  or  The  Silent  Woman,  a  comedy  (1610)  by  Ben 


OTHER  PRE-RESTORATION  PLAYS          113 

December  4,  1660.  After  dinner  Sir  Tho.  [Crew] 
and  my  Lady  to  the  Playhouse  to  see  "The  Silent 
Woman." 

January  7 ,  1660-61.  Tom  and  I  and  my  wife  to 
the  Theatre,  and  there  saw  "The  Silent  Woman,"  the 
first  time  that  ever  I  did  see  it,  and  it  is  an  excellent 
play.  Among  other  things  here,  Kinaston,  the  boy, 
had  the  good  turn  to  appear  in  three  shapes :  first  as  a 
poor  woman  in  ordinary  clothes,  to  please  Morose; 
then  in  fine  clothes,  as  a  gallant,  and  in  them  was 
clearly  the  prettiest  woman  in  the  whole  house,2  and 
,  lastly,  as  a  man;  and  then  likewise  did  appear  the 
handsomest  man  in  the  house. 

May  25,  1661.  To  the  Theatre,  where  I  saw  a 
piece  of  "The  Silent  Woman,"  which  pleased  me. 

June  1, 1664.  To  the  King's  house,  and  saw  "The 
Silent  Woman";  but  me-thought  not  so  well  done3 
or  so  good  a  play  as  I  formerly  thought  it  to  be,  or 
else  I  am  now  a-days  out  of  humour.  Before  the  play 
was  done,  it  fell  such  a  storm  of  hayle,  that  we  in  the 
middle  of  the  pit  were  fain  to  rise ;  and  all  the  house 
in  a  disorder. 

April  16,  1667.    In  haste  to  carry  my  wife  to  the 

Jonson,  mentioned  in  the  list  of  plays  "acted  by  the  Red  Bull 
Actors"  given  in  Malone's  Shakspeare,  Vol.  I,  Part  II,  p.  265. 
2  Epicoene  was  one  of  Kynaston's  famous  parts. 

"The  cast  which  Downes  gives  was  probably  the  cast  of 
this  day/'  says  Genest  (I,  pp.  49-50).  It  included  Cartwright 
as  Morose;  Mohun  as  Truewit;  Wintersell,  Sir  Amorous;  Shot- 
terel,  Daw;  Lacy,  Captain  Otter;  Burt,  Clerimont;  Kynaston, 
Sir  Dauphine;  Mrs.  Knepp,  Epicoene;  and  Mrs.  Corey,  Mrs. 
Otter. 


114  PEPYS  ON  THE  RESTORATION  STAGE 

new  play  I  saw  yesterday,4  she  not  knowing  it.  But 
there,  contrary  to  expectation,  find  "The  Silent 
Woman."  However,  in.  ...  I  was  never  more  taken 
with  a  play  than  I  am  with  this  "Silent  Woman,"  as 
old  as  it  is,  and  as  often  as  I  have  seen  it.  There  is 
more  wit  in  it  than  goes  to  ten  new  plays. 

September  18,  1668.  At  the  end  of  the  play, 
thinking  to  have  gone  abroad  with  Knepp,  but  it  was 
too  late,  and  she  to  get  her  part  against  to-morrow,  in 
"The  Silent  Woman." 

September  19,  1668.  To  the  King's  playhouse, 
and  there  saw  "The  Silent  Woman,"  the  best  comedy, 
I  think,  that  ever  was  wrote;  and  sitting  by  Shad- 
well  the  poet,  he  was  big  with  admiration  of  it.  .  .  . 
Knepp  did  her  part  mighty  well. 


Jonson,  Ben  EVERY  MAN  IN  HIS  HUMOUR 

February  9,  1666-67.  Read  a  piece  of  a  play, 
"Every  Man  in  his  Humour,"1  wherein  is  the  great- 
est propriety  of  speech  that  ever  I  read  in  my  life. 

4  Edward  Howard's  The  Change  of  Crowns. 

XA  comedy  (1598)  by  Ben  Jonson;  according  to  Downes 
(Roscius  Anglicanus,  p.  8)  one  of  the  "Principal  Old  Stock 
Plays"  at  the  King's  theatre. 


OTHER  PRE-RESTORAT1ON  PLAYS          115 
Jonson,  Ben  VOLPONE,  OR  THE  Fox 

January  14,  1664-65.  To  the  King's  house,  there 
to  see  "Vulpone/'1  a  most  excellent  play;  the  best  I 
think  I  ever  saw,  and  well  acted.2 

Kyd,  Thomas 

THE  SPANISH  TRAGEDY,  OR  HIERONIMO  Is 

MAD  AGAIN 

February  24,  1667-68.  To  the  Nursery,  where 
none  of  us  ever  were  before ;  where  the  house  is  better 
and  the  musique  better  than  we  looked  for,  and  the 
acting  not  much  worse,  because  I  expected  as  bad  as 
could  be :  and  I  was  not  much  mistaken,  for  it  was  so. 
However,  I  was  pleased  well  to  see  it  once,  it  being 
worth  a  man's  seeing  to  discover  the  different  ability 
and  understanding  of  people,  and  the  different 
growth  of  people's  abilities  by  practise.  Their  p 
was  a  bad  one,  called  "Jeronimo  is  Mad  Again,"1  a 
tragedy.  Here  was  some  good  company  by  us,  who 
did  make  mighty  sport  at  the  folly  of  their  acting, 
which  I  could  not  neither  refrain  from  sometimes, 
though  I  was  sorry  for  it. 

1A  comedy  (1605-1606)  by  Ben  Jonson.  On  October  16, 
1662,  Evelyn  "saw  'Volpone'  acted  at  Court  before  their  Maties" 
(Diary,  Wheatley  ed.,  II,  153). 

2  Downes  (Roscius  Anglicanus,  p.  4)  gives  the  following  cast: 
Volpone,  Mohun;  Mosca,  Hart;  Corbaccio,  Cartwright;  Corvino, 
Burt;  Sir  Politique  Would-be,  Lacy;  Peregrine,  Kynaston;  Lady 
Would-be,  Mrs.  Corey;  Celia,  Mrs.  Marshall. 

1  A  tragedy  (1586)  by  Thomas  Kyd.  It  was  performed  per- 
haps at  the  "Nursery"  for  actors  in  Hatton  Garden. 


116  PEPYS  ON  THE  RESTORATION  STAGE 

Marlowe,  Christopher 

THE  TRAGICAL  HISTORY  or  DOCTOR  FAUSTUS 

May  26,  1662.  To  the  Redd  Bull,  where  we  saw 
"Doctor  Faustus,"1  but  so  wretchedly  and  poorly 
done,  that  we  were  sick  of  it,  and  the  worse  because 
by  a  former  resolution  it  is  to  be  the  last  play  we  are 
to  see  till  Michaelmas.2 


Massinger,  Philip  THE  BONDMAN 

March  1, 1660-61.  To  Whitefryars,  and  saw  "The 
Bondman"1  acted;  an  excellent  play  and  well  done. 
But  above  all  that  ever  I  saw,  Betterton  do  the  Bond- 
man2 best. 

March  19,  1660-61.  To  White-Fryars,  where  we 
saw  "The  Bondman"  acted  most  excellently,  and 
though  I  have  seen  it  often,  yet  I  am  every  time  more 
and  more  pleased  with  Betterton's  action. 

March  26,  1661.  To  Salisbury  Court,  where  com- 
ing late  ...  I  and  my  wife  sat  in  the  pit,  .  .  .  and 
saw  "The  Bondman"  done  to  admiration. 

1  Marlowe's  tragedy   (1588)   probably  as  printed  in  the  edi- 
tion  of    1663,    which    contained    "several    new    scenes    and    the 
actors'  names"  (J.  O.  Halliwell  [Phillipps],  Dictionary  of  Old 
English  Plays,  p.  76). 

2  It  may  be  of  interest  to  note  that  on  September  29  (Michael- 
mas), Pepys  writes:  "This  day  my  oaths  for  drinking  of  wine 
and  going  to  plays  are  out,  and  so  I  do  resolve  to  take  a  liberty 
to-day,  and  then  to  fall  to  them  again." 

1  A  tragi-comedy  (1623)  by  Philip  Massinger. 

2  Marullo. 


OTHER  PRE-RESTORATION  PLAYS          117 

May  25,  1661.  In  my  way  bought  "The  Bond- 
man" in  Paul's  Churchyard. 

November  4,  1661.  To  the  Opera  where  we  saw 
"The  Bondman,"  which  of  old  we  both  did  so  doat 
on,  and  do  still;  though  to  both  our  thinking  not  so 
well  acted  here  (having  too  great  expectations)  as 
formerly  at  Salisbury- court.  But  for  Betterton,  he 
is  called  by  us  both  the  best  actor  in  the  world. 

November  25,  1661.  After  dinner  to  the  theatre, 
and  there  saw  "The  Country  Captain";  and  that 
being  done  .  .  .  went  to  the  Opera,  and  saw  the  last 
act  of  "The  Bondman." 

April  2,  1662.  To  the  Opera  and  there  saw  "The 
Bondman"  most  excellently  acted;  and  though  we  had 
seen  it  so  often,  yet  I  never  liked  it  better  than  to-day, 
lanthe3  acting  Cleora's  part  very  well  now  Roxalana 
is  gone. 

July  28,  1664.  Seeing  "The  Bondman"  upon  the 
posts,4  I  consulted  my  oath  and  find  I  may  go  safely 
this  time  without  breaking  it.  .  .  .  There  I  saw  it 
acted.  It  is  true,  for  want  of  practice,  they  had  many 
of  them  forgot  their  parts  a  little ;  but  Betterton  and 
my  poor  lanthe  outdo  all  the  world.  There  is  noth- 
ing more  taking  in  the  world  with  me  than  that  play. 

November  2,  1666.  And  so  home,5  I  reading  all 
the  way  to  make  an  end  of  the  "Bondman"  (which 
the  oftener  I  read  the  more  I  like). 

3  Mrs.   Betterton   ("lanthe")   succeeded  Elizabeth  Davenport 
("Roxalana")  in  this  and  other  important  parts. 

4  Where  the  playbills  were  placed. 

5  From  Deptford  where  he  frequently  went  on  business  for 
the  Admiralty. 


118     PEPYS  ON  THE  RESTORATION  STAGE 
Massinger  and  Dekker  THE  VIRGIN  MARTYR 

February  16,  1660-61.  To  the  Theatre,  where  I 
saw  "The  Virgin  Martyr,"1  a  good  but  too  sober  a 
play  for  the  company. 

February  27,  1667-68.  To  the  King's  House,  to 
see  "The  Virgin  Martyr,"  the  first  time  it  hath  been 
acted  a  great  while:  and  it  is  mighty  pleasant;  not 
that  the  play  is  worth  much,  but  it  is  finely  acted  by 
Becke  Marshal.2  But  that  which  did  please  me  be- 
yond anything  in  the  whole  world  was  the  wind 
musique  when  the  angel  comes  down,  which  is  so 
sweet  that  it  ravished  me. 

March  2,  1667-68.  To  the  King's  house  to  see  the 
"Virgin  Martyr"  again,  which  do  mightily  please  me, 
but  above  all  the  musique  at  the  coming  down  of  the 
angel,3  which  at  this  hearing  the  second  time,  do  still 
commend  me  as  nothing  ever  did,  and  the  other 
musique  is  nothing  to  it. 

May  6,  1668.  To  the  King's  playhouse,  and  there 
saw  "The  Virgin  Martyr,"  and  heard  the  music  that 
I  like  so  well. 


Mayne,  Jasper  THE  CITY  MATCH 

September  28,  1668.    Knepp's  maid  comes  to  me, 
to  tell  me  that  the  women's  day1  at  the  playhouse  is 

1  A  tragedy  by  Massinger  and  Dekker,  licensed  in  1620. 

2  Rebecca  Marshall  played  the  part  of  St.  Dorothea.      (Cf. 
Genest,  I,  80.) 

8  The  angel  entertained  by  St.  Dorothea  as  her  page. 
1  The  women's  benefit. 


OTHER  PRE-RESTORATION  PLAYS          119 

to-day,  and  that  therefore  I  must  be  there,  to  encrease 
their  profit.  .  .  .  Towards  the  King's  playhouse,  .  .  . 
and  there  saw  "The  City  Match";2  not  acted  these 
thirty  years,  and  but  a  silly  play;  the  King  and 
Court  there ;  the  house,  for  the  women's  sake,  mighty 
full. 


Middleton,  Thomas    THE  MAYOR  OF  QUINBOROUGH 

June  16,  1666.    All  the  way  down  and  up1  read- 
ing of  "The  Mayor  of  Quinborough,"2  a  simple  play. 


Jonson  (?),  Fletcher  (?),  and  Middleton 

THE  WIDOW 

January  8,  1660-61.  To  the  Theatre,  and  shewed 
them  "The  Widdow,"1  an  indifferent  good  play,  but 
wronged  by  the  women  being  to  seek  in  their  parts. 

2  A  farcical  comedy  by  Jasper  Mayne,  acted  in  1639. 

1  To  and  from  Deptford. 

2  An  historical  play   (1596?)   by  Thomas  Middleton,  printed 
in  1661.    Langbaine  (p.  372)  says  that  it  was  "often  acted  with 
much  applause,  by  his  Majesties  Servants." 

1  A  comedy  by  "Jonson,  Fletcher,  Middleton,"  acted  between 
1616  and  1625.  Evelyn  mentions  a  performance  of  it  on  Jan- 
uary 16,  1661-62:  "This  night  was  acted  before  his  Maty, 
'The  Widow/  a  lewd  play"  (Diary,  Wheatley  ed.,  II,  143). 
Langbaine  (p.  298)  says  it  "Was  reviv'd  not  many  Years  ago, 
at  the  King's  House,  with  a  new  Prologue  and  Epilogue." 


120     PEPYS  ON  THE  RESTORATION  STAGE 
Middleton  and  W.  Rowley  THE  CHANGELING 

February  23,  1660-61.  Then  by  water  to  White- 
friars  to  the  Play-house,  and  there  saw  "The  Change- 
ling,"1 the  first  time  it  hath  been  acted  these  twenty 
years,  and  it  takes  exceedingly.  Besides,  I  see  the 
galjants  do  begin  to  be  tyred  with  the  vanity  and 
pride  of  the  theatre  actors  who  are  indeed  grown  very" 
proud  and  rich. 


Middleton  and  W.  Rowley      THE  SPANISH  GYPSY 

June  16,  1661.  This  afternoon  ...  I  spent  in 
reading  "The  Spanish  Gypsey,"1  a  play  not  very 
good,  though  commended  much. 

March  7,  1667-68.  To  the  King's  playhouse,  and 
there  saw  "The  Spanish  Gipsys,"  the  second  time  of 
acting,  and  the  first  that  I  saw  it.  A  very  silly  play, 
only  great  variety  of  dances,  and  those  most  excel- 
lently done,  especially  one  part  by  one  Hanes2  only 
lately  come  thither  from  the  Nursery. 

1  A  tragedy  (1623)  by  Middleton  and  W.  Rowley;  its  success 
was  undoubtedly  due  in  part  to  the  acting  of  Betterton  in  the 
role  of  De  Flores. 

1  A  tragi-comedy  (1623)  by  Middleton  and  W.  Rowley. 

2  Joseph    Raines's    name    occurs    in    Downes's    list    (Roscius 
Anglicanus,  p.    2)    of   actors   who   joined  the   King's   company 
"after  they  had  begun  in  Drury-Lane." 


OTHER  PRE-RESTORATION  PLAYS          121 

Riley,  Thomas  (?)  CORNELIANUM  DOLIUM 

November  15, 1660.  So  to  Paul's  Churchyard  and 
bought  "Cornelianum  dolium."1 

December  3,  1660.  I  fell  a  reading  Cornelianum 
doMum  till  11  o'clock  at  night  with  great  pleasure. 

Rowley,  William  ALL'S  LOST  BY  LUST 

March  23,  1660-61.  At  last  into  the  pitt1  where  I 
think  there  was  not  above  ten  more  than  myself,  and 
not  one  hundred  in  the  whole  house.  And  the  play, 
which  is  called  "All's  lost  by  Lust,"2  poorly  donej  and 
with  so  much  disorder,  among  others,  in  the  musique- 
room,  the  boy  that  was  to  sing  a  song,  not  singing 
it  right,  his  master  fell  about  his  ears  and  beat  him  so, 
that  it  put  the  whole  house  into  an  uprore. 

Shirley,  James  THE  CARDINAL 

October  2,  1662.  Hearing  that- there  was  a 'play 
at  the  Cockpit,1  .  .  .  I  do  go  thither,  and  by  very 
great  fortune  did  follow  four  or  five  gentlemen  who 

1 A  Latin  comedy  (1638)  "probably  by  Thomas  Riley  of 
Trinity  College,  Cambridge,"  asserts  W.  C.  Hazlitt  (A  Manual 
for  the  Collector  and  Amateur  of  Old  English  Plays,  p.  50). 

1  At  the  Red  Bull  Playhouse. 

2  A  tragedy  (1619?)  by  W.  Rowley,  mentioned  in  the  list  of 
plays    performed   by   Killigrew's   company,   in   Malone's   Shak- 
speare,  Vol.  I,  Part  II,  p.  266,  as  having  been  acted  in  March, 
April,  and  May  of  this  year. 

1  In  Whitehall  Palace. 


122  PEPYS  ON  THE  RESTORATION  STAGE 

were  carried  to  a  little  private  door  in  a  wall,  and  so 
crept  through  a  narrow  place  and  come  into  one  of  the 
boxes  next  the  King's,  but  so  as  I  could  not  see  the 
King  or  Queene,  but  many  of  the  fine  ladies,  who  yet 
are  really  not  so  handsome  generally  as  I  used  to  take 
them  to  be,  but  that  they  are  finely  dressed.  Here 
we  saw  "The  Cardinall,"2  a  tragedy  I  had  never  seen 
before,  nor  is  there  any  great  matter  in  it.  The  com- 
pany that  came  in  with  me  into  the  box,  were  all 
Frenchmen  that  could  speak  no  English,  but,  Lord! 
what  sport  they  made  to  ask  a  pretty  lady  that  they 
got  among  them  that  understood  both  French  and 
English  to  make  her  tell  them  what  the  actors  said. 

August  24,  1667.  Saw  "The  Cardinall"  at  the 
King's  house,  wherewith  I  am  mightily  pleased;  but, 
above  all,  with  Becke  Marshall.3 

April  27,  1668.  To  the  King's  playhouse,  and 
there  saw  most  of  "The  Cardinall,"  a  good  play. 


Shirley,,  James     THE  CHANGES,  OR  LOVE  IN  A  MAZE 

May  22, 1662.  To  the  Theatre  and  saw  "Love  in  a 
Maze."1  The  play  hath  little  in  it  but  Lacy's  part  of 
a  country  fellow,2  which  he  did  to  admiration. 

June  10,  1663.     To  the  Royal  Theatre  by  water, 

2  A  tragedy  by  James  Shirley  licensed  in  1641,  mentioned  by 
Downes   (Roscius  Anglicanus,  p.  8)   among  the  "Principal  Old 
Stock  Plays"  of  the  King's  company. 

3  Rebecca  Marshall  doubtless  acted  the  part  of  the  Duchess 
Rosaura. 

*A  comedy  (1632)  by  James  Shirley. 

2  Langbaine  records   (p.  477) :  "As  I  remember,  the  deceas'd 


OTHER  PRE-RESTORATION  PLAYS          123 

and  ...  we  saw  "Love  in  a  Maze."  The  play  is 
pretty  good,  but  the  life  of  the  play  is  Lacy's  part, 
the  clown,  which  is  most  admirable;  but  for  the  rest, 
which  are  counted  such  old  and  excellent  actors,  in 
my  life  I  never  heard  both  men  and  women  so  ill  pro- 
nounce their  parts,  even  to  my  making  myself  sick 
therewith. 

May  1,  1667.  Thence  away  to  the  King's  play- 
house, .  .  .  and  saw  "Love  in  a  Maze":  but  a  sorry 
play:  only  Lacy's  clowne's  part,  which  he  did  most 
admirably  indeed ;  and  I  am  glad  to  find  the  rogue  at 
liberty  again.  Here  was  but  little,  and  that  ordinary 
company. 

February  7,  1667-68.  To  the  King's  playhouse, 
and  there  saw  a  piece  of  "Love  in  a  Maze,"  a  dull, 
silly  play,  I  think. 

April  28, 1668.  To  the  King's  house,  and  there  did 
see  "Love  in  a  Maze,"  wherein  very  good  mirth  of 
Lacy,  the  clown,  and  Wintersell,  the  country- knight, 
his  master.3 


Shirley,  James  THE  COURT  SECRET 

August  18,  1664.  My  wife  going  to-day  to  see  a 
new  play,  "The  Court  Secret."1  .  .  .  My  wife  says  the 
play  she  saw  is  the  worst  that  ever  she  saw  in  her  life. 

Mr.  Lacy  acted  Jonny  Thump,  Sir  Gervase  Simple's  man,  with 
general  Applause." 

3  Sir  Gervase  Simple  was  impersonated  by  William  Wintersell. 

1  A  tragi-comedy  by  James  Shirley,  written  before  1642  but 
not  acted,  according  to  Langbaine  (p.  484),  "till  after  it 
appeared  in  print,  .  .  .  1653."  Genest  states  (I,  351)  that  it 
"was  brought  out  by  the  King's  company." 


124     PEPYS  ON  THE  RESTORATION  STAGE 
Shirley,  James  THE  GRATEFUL  SERVANT 

February  20,  1668-69.  To  the  Duke  of  York's 
house,  and  there  saw  "The  Gratefull  Servant,"1  a 
pretty  good  play,  and  which  I  have  forgot  that  ever 
I  did  see. 


Shirley,  James  HYDE  PARK 

July  11,  1668.  After  dinner  to  the  King's  play- 
house, to  see  an  old  play  of  Shirly's,  called  "Hide 
Parke";1  the  first  day  acted;  where  horses  are  brought 
upon  the  stage:2  but  it  is  a  very  moderate  play,  only 
an  excellent  epilogue  spoke  by  Beck  Marshall. 

1 A  tragi-comedy  (licensed  in  1629)  by  James  Shirley. 
Downes  (Roscius  Anglicanus,  p.  27)  mentions  the  production 
of  this  play,  which  he  says  was  "well  Perform'd;  especially 
Dulcino  the  Grateful  Servant,  being  Acted  by  Mrs.  Long;  and 
the  first  time  she  appear'd  in  Man's  Habit,  prov'd  as  Beneficial 
to  the  Company,  as  several  succeeding  new  Plays." 

1  A  comedy  of  contemporary  London  life  by  James  Shirley, 
licensed  in  1632. 

2  Doubtless  during  the  scene  at  the  races  laid  in  Hyde  Park 
in  Act  IV.     Mr.  Edmund  Gosse,  in  commenting  upon  this  entry 
in  Pepys's  journal,  remarks  that  "it  would  not  appear  that  this 
was    attempted   by    Shirley,   since   the   stage   directions    .     .     . 
together  with  the  fact  that  the  personages  enter  to  inform  their 
friends  of  their  luck,  seem  to  show  that  the  horses  were  kept  out 
of  sight  of  the  audience."     (Cf.  James  Shirley,  in  The  Mermaid 
Series,  [1888]  ed.,  Introduction,  p.  22.) 


OTHER  PRE-RESTORATION  PLAYS          125 
Shirley,  James  LOVE'S  CRUELTY 

December  30,  1667.  To  the  King's  playhouse, 
there  to  see  "Love's  Cruelty,"1  an  old  play,  but  which 
I  have  not  seen  before,  .  .  .  and  it  proves  to  me  a 
very  silly  play,  and  to  everybody  else,  as  far  as  I  could 
judge. 

April  14,  1668.  Thence  to  a  play,  "Love's 
Cruelty."  .  .  .  Play  part  2s.  Oranges  Is. 


Shirley,  James 

LOVE  TRICKS,  OR  THE  SCHOOL  OF  COMPLIMENT 

August  5,  1667.  To  the  Duke  of  York's  house, 
and  there  saw  "Love  Trickes,  or  the  School  of  Com- 
pliments,"1 a  silly  play,  only  Mis's  [Davis's]  dancing2 
in  the  shepherds  clothes  did  please  us  mightily. 

January  7,  1667-68.  To  look  for  them,  and  there 
by  this  means,  for  nothing,  see  an  act  in  "The  Schoole 
of  Compliments"  at  the  Duke  of  York's  house. 

1  A  tragedy  (1631)  by  James  Shirley,  evidently  one  of  the 
earliest  plays  to  be  revived  after  the  Restoration,  as  it  occurs 
in  the  list  of  "plays  acted  by  the  Red  Bull  Actors/'  given  in 
Malone's  Shakspeare,  Vol.  I,  Part  II,  p.  265.  Mohun  played 
the  part  of  Bellamente. 

1  A  comedy  (1625)  by  James  Shirley;  its  revival  is  noted  by 
Downes,  Roscius  Anglicanus,  p.  27. 

2  In  the  part  of  Selina,  who  disguised  as  a  shepherd  dances 
with  Antonio,  who  is  in  women's  clothes. 


126     PEPYS  ON  THE  RESTORATION  STAGE 
Shirley,  James  THE  TRAITOR 

November  22,  1660.  I  to  the  new  playhouse  and 
saw  part  of  the  "Traitor,"1  a  very  good  Tragedy;  Mr. 
Moon  did  act  the  Traitor2  very  well. 

October  10,  1661.  To  the  Theatre  .  .  .  where 
the  King  came  to-day,  and  there  was  "The  Traytor" 
most  admirably  acted ;  and  a  most  excellent  play  it  is. 

January  13,  1664-65.  To  the  King's  house,  to  a 
play,  "The  Traytor,"  where,  unfortunately,  I  met 
with  Sir  W.  Pen,  so  that  I  must  be  forced  to  confess 
it3  to  my  wife,  which  troubles  me. 

October  2, 1667.  To  the  King's  house  to  see  "The 
Traytour,"  which  still  I  like  as  a  very  good  play. 


Suckling,  Sir  John  AGLAURA 

September  24,  1662.  Bird1  hath  lately  broke  his 
leg,  while  he  was  fencing  in  "Aglaura."2 

XA  tragedy  (1631)  by  James  Shirley,  mentioned  in  the  list 
of  plays  performed  by  Killigrew's  company,  given  in  Malone's 
Shakspeare,  Vol.  I,  Part  II,  p.  266,  as  having  been  acted  on 
this  date. 

2  Lorenzo,  "Kinsman  and  Favourite"  of  the  Duke  of  Florence; 
"Mr.  Moon"  is  Michael  Mohun. 

3  His  playgoing  in  violation  of  a  vow. 

1  R.   W.   Lowe  mentions   in  this   connection   an   actor   named 
Theophilus  Bird.     (Cf.  Thomas  Betterton,  1891  ed.,  p.  78.) 

2  A  pseudo-historical  tragedy  by  Sir  John  Suckling,  first  acted 
as  a  tragedy  in  1636,  later  acted  as  a  tragi-comedy  in  1637,  with 
a  new  fifth  act  giving  a  happy  ending  to  the  intricate  and  sinister 
plot. 


OTHER  PRE-RESTORATION  PLAYS          127 

September  5, 1664.  To  Deptford,  and  so  home,  all 
the  way  reading  Sir  J.  Suck [1]  ing's  "Aglaura," 
which,  methinks,  is  but  a  mean  play,  nothing  of  design 
in  it. 

January  10,  1667-68.  To  the  King's  house,  to  see 
"Aglaura,"  which  hath  been  always  mightily  cried 
up;  and  so  I  went  with  mighty  expectation,  but  do 
find  nothing  extraordinary  in  it  at  all,  and  but  hardly 
good  in  any  degree. 


Suckling,  Sir  John 

BRENNORALT,  OR  THE  DISCONTENTED  COLONEL 

July  23,  1661.  I  went  to  the  Theatre,  and  saw 
"Brenoralt,"1  I  never  saw  before.  It  seemed  a  good 
play,  but  ill  acted. 

August  12,  1667.  To  the  King's  playhouse,  and 
there  .  .  .  the  play  is  "Brenoralt,"  which  I  do  find 
but  little  in,  for  my  part. 

October  18,  1667.  To  the  King's  house,  and  saw 
"Brenoralt,"  which  is  a  good  tragedy  that  I  like 
well. 

March  5, 1667-68.  To  the  King's  house,  and  there 
saw  part  of  "The  Discontented  Colonel,"  but  could 
take  no  great  pleasure  in  it,  because  of  our  coming 
in  in  the  middle  of  it. 

1  A  tragi-comedy  (printed  1646)  with  a  pseudo-historical  back- 
ground, by  Sir  John  Suckling. 


128     PEPYS  ON  THE  RESTORATION  STAGE 
Suckling,  Sir  John  THE  GOBLINS 

January  23, 1666-67.  Knipp  made  us  stay  in  a  box 
and  see  the  dancing  preparatory  to  to-morrow  for 
"The  Goblins,"1  a  play  of  Suckling's  not  acted  these 
twenty-five  years ;  which  was  pretty. 

January  24,  1666-67.  But  it  was  she  [Knepp] 
coming  off  the  stage  just  as  she  acted  this  day  in  "The 
Goblins." 

May  22,  1667.  To  the  King's  house,  where  I  did 
give  ISd.,  and  saw  the  last  two  acts  of  "The  Goblins," 
a  play  I  could  not  make  any  thing  out  of  by  these  two 
acts,  but  here  Knipp  spied  me  out  of  the  tiring-room, 
and  come  to  the^it  door. 


Tomkis,  Thomas  ALBUMAZAR 

February  22,  1667-68.  To  the  Duke's  playhouse, 
and  there  saw  "Albumazar,"1  an  old  play,  this  the 
second  time  of  acting.  It  is  said  to  have  been  the 
ground  of  B.  Jonson's  "Alchymist";  but,  saving  the 
ridiculousnesse  of  Angell's  part,  which  is  called  Trin- 
kilo,  I  do  not  see  anything  extraordinary  in  it,  but  was 

1A  comedy  (1638?)  by  Sir  John  Suckling.  Neither  Downes 
nor  Genest  gives  the  cast. 

1A  comedy  (1614)  by  a  "Mr.  Tomkis,"  erroneously  referred 
to,  on  its  revival,  by  Dry  den  in  the  prologue  he  wrote  for  it  as 
being  the  f model"  of  The  Alchemist: 

"Subtle  was  got  by  our  Albumazar, 

That  Alchymist  by  this  Astrologer.  ..." 
(Cf.  The  Works  of  John  Dryden,  Scott-Saintsbury  ed.,  X,  418.) 


OTHER  PRE-RESTORATION  PLAYS          129 

indeed  weary  of  it  before  it  was  done.  The  King 
here,  and,  indeed,  all  of  us,  pretty  merry  at  the 
mimique  tricks  of  Trinkilo. 


Webster,  John  THE  DUCHESS  OF  MALFI 

September  30,  1662.     To  the  Duke's  playhouse, 
where  we  saw  "The  Duchess  of  Malfy"1  well  per-7 
formed,  but  Betterton  and  lanthe  to  admiration.2 

November   2,    1666.      Begun    "The    Duchess    of 
Malfy,"  which  seems  a  good  play. 

November     6,     1666.       To     Deptford,     reading 
"Duchesse  of  Malfy,"  the  play  which  is  pretty  good. 

November  25, 1668.    To  the  Duke  of  York's  house, 
to  see  "The  Duchesse  of  Malfy,"  a  sorry  play .„,*__ 


Webster,  John 

,/r 

THE  WHITE  DEVIL,  OR  VITTORIA  COROMBONA 

October  2,  1661.  We  went  to  the  Theatre,  but 
coming  late,  and  sitting  in  an  ill  place,  I  never  had  so 
little  pleasure  in  a  play  in  my  life,  yet  it  was  the  first 

1  A  tragedy  (printed  1623)  by  John  Webster. 

2  Betterton  played  the  part  of  Bosola,  and  "lanthe"    (Mrs. 
Betterton),   the    Duchess   of    Malfi;    Harris,    Duke    Ferdinand; 
Smith,  Antonio;  and  Young,  the  Cardinal, — according  to  Downes 
(Roscius  Anglicanus,  p.  25),  who  adds:  "This  Play  was  so  ex- 
ceedingly Excellently  Acted  in  all  Parts;  chiefly,  Duke  Ferdi- 
nand and  Bosola:  It  fill'd  the  House  8   Days   Successively,  it 
proving  one  of  the  Best  of  Stock  Tragedies." 


130  PEPYS  ON  THE  RESTORATION  STAGE 

time  that  ever  I  saw  it,  "Victoria  Corombona."1    Me- 
thinks  a  very  poor  play. 

'  October  4,  1661.  To  the  Theatre,  and  there  came 
too  late,  so  we  staid  and  saw  a  bit  of  "Victoria," 
which  pleased  me  worse  than  it  did  the  other  day. 


Unknown  Author 

THE  MERRY  DEVIL  or  EDMONTON 

August  10,  1661.  To  the  Theatre,  and  shewed 
them  "The  merry  Devill  of  Edmunton,"1  which  is  a 
very  merry  play,  the  first  time  I  ever  saw  it,  which 
pleased  me  well. 

*A  tragedy  (1607-1608)  by  John  Webster,  mentioned  in 
Downes's  list  (Roscius  Anglicanus,  p.  9)  of  "Principal  Old 
Stock  Plays"  of  the  King's  company. 

1  A  comedy  ascribed  by  Coxeter  to  Michael  Dray  ton ;  nothing 
definite  is  known  of  its  authorship.  C.  F.  Tucker  Brooke  makes 
the  following  statement  about  it  (The  Tudor  Drama,  p.  276): 
"Registered  for  publication  in  1607,  it  is  known  to  have  enjoyed 
marked  popularity  on  the  stage  three  years  earlier  and  was  pre- 
sumably composed  shortly  before  the  end  of  Elizabeth's  reign." 
It  was  one  of  the  "Principal  Old  Stock  Plays"  of  the  King's 
company. 


CHAPTER  III 
PLAYS  OF  UNCERTAIN  DATE 


CHAPTER  III 
PLAYS  OF  UNCERTAIN  DATE 

Unknown  Author  LOVE'S  QUARREL 

April  6,  1661.  To  Salisbury  Court  and  there  saw 
"Love's  Quarrell"1  acted  the  first  time,  but  do  not  like 
the  design  or  words. 

Unknown  Author  MERRY  ANDREW 

August  29,  1668.  To  Bartholomew  Fair,  and 
there  did  see  a  ridiculous,  obscene  little  stage-play, 
called  "Marry  Andrey";1  a  foolish  thing,  but  seen 
by  everybody. 

Unnamed  Plays 

November  20,  1660.  I  found  my  Lord  Sandwich 
in  bed  late,  he  having  been  with  the  King,  Queen,  and 
Princesse,  at  the  Cockpit1  all  night,  where  after 
supper  a  play. 

1  "The  play  is  not  known  otherwise  than  by  this  notice'' 
(Pepys's  Diary,  Wheatley  ed.,  II,  3n). 

1  Probably  the  old  folk  play  of  The  Vagaries  of  Merry 
Andrew,  often  acted  by  puppets. 

1  In  Whitehall  Palace. 


\ 


1 


134  PEPYS  ON  THE  RESTORATION  STAGE 

February  20,  1662-63.  I  met  Madam  Turner,  she 
and  her  daughter  having  been  at  the  play  to-day  at 
the  Temple,  it  being  a  revelling  time  with  them. 

December  6,  1666.  After  dinner  my  wife  and 
brother  ...  go  out  to  see  a  play.  .  .  .  My  wife  not 
pleased  with  the  play,  but  thinks  that  is  it  [s£c]  be- 
cause she  is  grown  more  critical  than  she  used  to  be, 
but  my  brother  she  says  is  mightily  taken  with  it. 

December  26, 1666.  I  put  the  women  into  a  coach, 
and  they  to  the  Duke's  house,  to  a  play  which  was 
acted,  "The  -  — ."  It  was  indifferently  done,  but 
was  not  pleased  with  the  song,  Gosnell  not  singing, 
but  a  new  wench,  that  sings  naughtily. 

February  IS,  1666-67.  Dr.  Clerke2  fell  to  reading 
a  new  play,  newly  writ,  of  a  friend's  of  his;  but,  by 
his  disclosure  and  confession  afterwards,  it  was  his 
own. 

July  22,  1667.  Creed  tells  me  of  the  fray  between 
the  Duke  of  Buckingham  at  the  Duke's  playhouse 
the  last  Saturday  (and  it  is  the  first  day  I  have  heard 
that  they  have  acted  at  either  the  Duke's  or  the  King's 
houses  this  month  or  six  weeks)  and  Henry  Killi- 
grew. 

April  13,  1668.  So  with  Creed  to  a  play.  Little 
laugh,  4s. 

July  17, 1668.  To  the  King's  House,  to  see  a  play 

revived  called  The ;  a  sorry  mean  play,  that 

vexed  us  to  sit  in  so  much  heat  of  the  weather  to  hear 
it. 

2  Timothy  Clarke,  appointed  physician-in-ordinary  to  Charles 
the  Second  in  1667. 


CHAPTER  IV 

CONTEMPORARY  RESTORATION 
PLAYS 


\ 


CHAPTER  IV 

CONTEMPORARY  RESTORATION 
PLAYS 

[NOTE:  In  a  few  instances  pre-Restoration  works  by  authors, 
certain  of  whose  plays  were  produced  after  1660,  are  included  in 
this  section.] 

Betterton,  Thomas 

THE  ROMAN  VIRGIN,  OR  THE  UNJUST  JUDGE 

May  12,  1669.  To  the  Duke  of  York's  playhouse, 
and  there,  in  the  side  balcony,  over  against  the 
musick,  did  hear,  but  not  see,  a  new  play,  the  first 
day  acted,  "The  Roman  Virgin,"1  an  old  play,  but 
ordinary,  I  thought :  but  the  trouble  of  my  eyes  with 
the  candles  did  almost  kill  me. 


Bristol,  Earl  of  WORSE  AND  WORSE 

July  20, 1664.  Went  to  a  play,  only  a  piece  of  it, 
which  was  at  the  Duke's  house,  "Worse  and  Worse";1 

1 A  tragedy  adapted  from  Webster's  Appius  and  Virginia 
(printed  1654)  by  Thomas  Betterton,  the  actor,  and  published 
as  altered  in  1679.  Betterton  acted  the  part  of  Virginius;  Har- 
ris, Appius;  and  Mrs.  Betterton,  Virginia;  "and  all  the  other 
Parts  Exactly  perform' d,  it  lasted  Successively  8  Days,"  records 
Downes  (Roscius  Anglicanus,  p.  30). 

1  A  lost  adaptation  from  a  comedy  of  Calderon,  probably  Peor 


138  PEPYS  ON  THE  RESTORATION  STAGE 

just  the  same  manner  of  play,  and  writ,  I  believe,  by 
the  same  man,  as  "The  Adventures  of  Five  Hours"  ;2 
very  pleasant  it  was,  and  I  begin  to  admire  Harris 
more  than  ever. 


Caryl,  John 

THE  ENGLISH  PRINCESS,  OR  RICHARD  THE  THIRD 

March  7,  1666-67.  Thence  to  the  Duke's  play- 
house, and  saw  "The  English  Princesse,  or  Richard 
the  Third/'1  a  most  sad,  melancholy  play,  and  pretty 
good,  but  nothing  eminent  in  it,  as  some  tragedys  are ; 
only  little  Mis.  Davis  did  dance  a  jig  after  the  end 
of  the  play,  and  there  telling  the  next  day's  play;  so 
that  it  come  in  by  force  only  to  please  the  company 
to  see  her  dance  in  boy's  clothes;  and,  the  truth  is, 
there  is  no  comparison  between  Nell's2  dancing  the 
other  day  at  the  King's  house  in  boy's  clothes  and 
this,  this  being  infinitely  beyond  the  other. 

Estd  que  Estaba,  by  George  Digby,  Earl  of  Bristol,  acted  be- 
tween 1662  and  1665.  (Cf.  A.  W.  Ward,  A  History  of  English 
Dramatic  Literature,  2d  ed.,  Ill,  305.) 

2  An  adaptation  (1663)  by  Sir  Samuel  Tuke  from  a  play 
ascribed  to  Antonio  Coello. 

1  A  tragedy  (published  1667)  by  John  Caryl.     Downes  states 
(Roscius  Anglicanus,  p.  27)  that  it  was  "Excellently  well  Acted 
in  every  Part;  chiefly  King  Richard  by  Mr.  Betterton;  Duke  of 
Richmond,  by  Mr.  Harris;  Sir  William  Stanly,  by  Mr.  Smith," — 
and  that  it  "Gained  them  an  Additional  Estimation,   and  the 
Applause  from  the  Town,  as  well  as  profit  to  the  whole  Com- 
pany." 

2  Nell  Gwyn's  dancing  in  The  Maiden  Queen. 


CONTEMPORARY  RESTORATION  PLAYS     139 
Cowley,  Abraham         CUTTER  OF  COLEMAN  STREET 

December  16,  1661.  To  the  Opera,  where  there 
was  a  new  play  ("Cutter  of  Coleman  Street"1)  made 
in  the  year  1658,  with  reflections  much  upon  the  late 
times;  and  it  being  the  first  time,  the  pay  was 
doubled,  and  so  to  save  money,  my  wife  and  I  went 
up  into  the  gallery,  and  there  sat  and  saw  very  well; 
and  a  very  good  play  it  is.  It  seems  of  Cowly's 
making. 

August  5,  1668.  To  the  Duke  of  York's  play- 
house, and  there  saw  "The  Guardian";  formerly  the 
same,  I  find,  that  was  called  "Cutter, of  Coleman 
Street";  a  silly  play. 


Cowley,  Abraham  NAUFRAGIUM  JOCULARE 

February  19, 1660-61.  Spent  the  evening  in  read- 
ing of  a  Latin  play,  the  "Naufragium  Joculare."1 

*A  comedy  (1661),  by  Abraham  Cowley,  based  on  his  play 
first  acted  at  Cambridge  in  1641  under  the  title  of  The  Guardian, 
"and  several  times  after  privately  during  the  Troubles.  .  .  . 
The  scene  lies  in  London  in  the  year  1658."  (Cf.  Preface  to 
1663  ed.)  Betterton  was  Colonel  Jolly;  Harris,  Truman  Junior; 
"Mrs.  Betterton/'  Aurelia — in  a  later  performance,  perhaps,  as 
she  was  not  then  married.  It  "was  Acted  so  perfectly  Well  and 
Exact/'  that  according  to  Downes  (Roscius  Anglicanus,  p.  25), 
"it  was  perform'd  a  whole  Week  with  a  full  Audience." 

1  A  comedy  in  Latin  by  Abraham  Cowley,  acted  at  Trinity 
College,  Cambridge,  in  1638. 


140  PEPYS  ON  THE  RESTORATION  STAGE 

D'Avenant,  Sir  William 

THE  FIRST  DAY'S  ENTERTAINMENT  AT 

RUTLAND  HOUSE 

February  7,  1663-64.  With  great  mirth  read  Sir 
W.  Davenant's  two  speeches  in  dispraise  of  London 
and  Paris,  by  way  of  reproach  to  one  another.1 


D'Avenant,  Sir  William  LOVE  AND  HONOUR 

October  21,  1661.  And  so  against  my  judgment 
and  conscience  (which  God  forgive,  for  my  very  heart 
knows  that  I  offend  God  in  breaking  my  vows  herein) 
to  the  Opera,1  which  is  now  newly  begun  to  act  again, 
after  some  alteracion  of  their  scene,  which  do  make  it 
much  worse;  but  the  play,  "Love  and  Honour,"2 


1These  two  speeches  form  the  second  part  of  The  First  Days 
Entertainment  at  Rutland-House,  by  Declamations  and  Mustek, 
after  the  Manner  of  the  4ndents  (1656),  immediately  following 
"a  concert  of  instrumental  musick,  after  the  French  composi- 
tion.'* The  Entertainment  is  important  historically  as  being  the 
first  notable  step  towards  the  revival  of  regular  theatrical  pro- 
ductions taken  during  the  latter  part  of  the  dramatic  inter- 
regnum. For  D'Avenant's  alteration  of  Measure  for  Measure 
(The  Law  Against  Lovers),  see  p.  69;  of  Macbeth,  see  p.  70; 
of  The  Tempest  (with  Dryden),  see  pp.  75-77. 

1  The   Duke    of   York's    playhouse    in    Lincoln's    Inn    Fields, 
had  been  opened,  according  to  Pepys,  in  June,  1661. 

2  A    pre-Restoration    heroic    play     (1634)    by    Sir    William 
D'Avenant.     Evelyn  saw  it  on  November  11,  1661.     "I  was  so 
idle,"    he   records,   "as   to   go  to   see   a   play   call'd   'Love   and 
Honour'  "(Diary,  Wheatley  ed.,  II,  153).  Downes  describes  it 
as  follows:  "This  Play  was  Richly  C[l]oath'd;  The  King  giving 


CONTEMPORARY  RESTORATION  PLAYS     141 

being  the  first  time  of  their  acting  it,  is  a  very  good 
plot,  and  well  done. 

October  23, 1661.  So  back  to  the  Opera,  and  there 
I  saw  again  "Love  and  Honour,"  and  a  very  good 
play  it  is. 

October  25,  1661.  After  dinner  my  wife  and  I  to 
the  Opera,  and  there  saw  again  "Love  and  Honour," 
a  play  so  good  that  it  has  been  acted  but  three  times 
and  I  have  seen  them  all,  and  all  in  this  week;  which 
is  too  much,  and  more  than  I  will  do  again  a  good 
while. 


D'Avenant,  Sir  William     THE  MAN'S  THE  MASTER 

March  26, 1667-68.  To  the  Duke  of  York's  house, 
to  see  the  new  play,  called  "The  Man  is  Master,"1 
where  the  house  was,  it  not  being  above  one  o'clock, 
very  full.  But  my  wife  and  Deb.  being  there  before, 
.  .  .  they  made  me  room;  and  there  I  sat,  it  costing 
me  Ss.  upon  them  in  oranges,  at  6d.  a-piece.  By  and 

Mr.  Betterton  his  Coronation  Suit,  in  which,  he  Acted  the  Part 
of  Prince  Alvaro;  the  Duke  of  York  giving  Mr.  Harris  his,  who 
did  Prince  Prospero;  And  my  Lord  of  Oxford,  gave  Mr.  Joseph 
Price  his,  who  did  Lionel,  the  Duke  of  Parma's  Son;  The  Duke 
was  acted  by  Mr.  Lilliston;  Evandra  by  Mrs.  Davenport,  and 
all  the  other  Parts  being  well  done;  The  Play  having  a  great 
run,  Produc'd  to  the  Company  great  Gain  and  Estimation  from 
the  Town"  (Roscius  Anglicanus,  pp.  21-22). 

1  The  Man's  the  Master  (1668)  was  D'Avenant's  last  play. 
It  is  based  upon  two  plays  by  Scarron — Jodelet,  ou  le  Maitre 
Valet,  and  L'Heritiere  Ridicule. 


142  PEPYS  ON  THE  RESTORATION  STAGE 

by  the  King  come;  and  we  sat  just  under  him,  so  that 
I  durst  not  turn  my  back  all  the  play.  The  play  is  a 
translation  out  of  French,  and  the  plot  Spanish,  but 
not  anything  extraordinary  at  all  in  it,  though  trans- 
lated by  Sir  W.  Davenant,  and  so  I  found  the  King 
and  his  company  did  think  meanly  of  it  though  there 
was  here  and  there  something  pretty :  but  the  most  of 
the  mirth  was  sorry,  poor  stuffe,  of  eating  of  sack 
posset  and  slabbering  themselves,  and  mirth  fit  for 
clownes ;  the  prologue  but  poor,  and  the  epilogue  little 
in  it  but  the  extraordinariness  of  it,  it  being  sung  by 
Harris2  and  another  in  the  form  of  a  ballet. 

April  3, 1668.  To  the  Duke's  playhouse,  and  there 
saw  the  latter  part  of  "The  Master  and  the  Man." 

May  7,  1668.  To  the  Duke  of  York's  house,  and 
there  saw  "The  Man's  the  Master,"  which  proves, 
upon  my  seeing  it  again,  a  very  good  play. 


D'Avenant,  Sir  William  THE  RIVALS 

September  10,  1664.  To  the  Duke's  house,  and 
there  saw  "The  Hi  vails,"1  which  is  no  excellent  play, 

X  >-*-^  ^^**f*~~* 

2  Harris's  part  was  Don  John;  "another"  was  Sandford. 
Genest  (I,  $5)  states  that  The  Man's  the  Master  was  revived  in 
1726  and  1775,  and  "is  the  only  one  of  Davenant's  16  plays 
which  has  been  acted  for  many  years." 

1  An  alteration  (1664)  by  Sir  William  D'Avenant  of  The  Two 
Noble  Kinsmen.  Harris  played  the  part  of  Theocles ;  Betterton 
that  of  Philander.  Gosnell  is  not  mentioned  by  Downes  in  his 
cast  of  the  play  (Roscius  Anglicanus,  p.  23)  ;  he  notes,  however, 
of  the  women's  parts  that  they  were  "admirably  Acted;  chiefly 


CONTEMPORARY  RESTORATION  PLAYS     143 

but  good  acting  in  it;  especially  Gosnell  comes  and 
sings  and  dances  finely,  but,  for  all  that,  fell  out  of  the 
key,  so  that  the  musique  could  not  play  to  her  after- 
wards, and  so  did  Harris  also  go  out  of  the  tune  to 
agree  with  her. 

December  2, 1664.  To  the  Duke's  house,  and  there 
saw,  "The  Rivalls,"  which  I  had  seen  before;  butJthe 
play  not  good  nor  anything  but  the  good  actings  of 
-Betterton  and  his  wife  and  Harris. 


D'Avenant,  Sir  William          THE  SIEGE  OF  RHODES 

July  2,  1661.  Went  to  Sir  William  Davenant's 
Opera;  this  being  the  fourth  day  that  it  hath  begun, 
and  the  first  that  I  have  seen  it.  To-day  was  acted  the 
second  part  of  "The  Siege  of  Rhodes."1  We  staid 
a  very  great  while  for  the  King  and  the  Queen  of 

HI 

Celia,  a  Sheperdess  being  Mad  for  Love;  especially  in  Singing 
several  Wild  and  Mad  Songs."  "Moll"  Davis  was  the  Celia 
(should  be  Celania)  here  referred  to. 

1  The  first  English  opera — Part  I,  1656.  Evelyn  mentions 
seeing  "the  Third  [should  be  second]  Part  of  the  Siege  of 
Rhodes,"  on  January  9,  1661-62;  "it  was  in  recitaviva  musiq" 
(Diary,  Wheatley  ed.,  II,  141).  Downes  (Roscius  Anglicanus, 
pp.  20-21)  describes  it  as  "having  new  Scenes  and  Decorations, 
being  the  first  that  were  e're  Introduced  in  England."  Betterton 
acted  Solyman ;  Harris,  Alphonso ;  Mrs.  Saunderson,  lanthe ;  and 
Mrs.  Davenport,  Roxalana.  In  referring  later  (ibid.,  p.  33)  to 
the  initial  performance  "on  the  very  first  Day  of  opening  the 
House/'  Downes  states  that  in  the  audience  were  "the  King, 
Duke  of  York,  and  all  the  Nobility,  .  .  .  and  the  first  time  the 
King  was  in  a  Publick  Theatre." 


144  PEPYS  ON  THE  RESTORATION  STAGE 

Bohemia;2  and  by  the  breaking  of  a  board  over  our 
heads,  we  had  a  great  deal  of  dust  fell  into  the  ladies' 
peeks  and  the  men's  hair,  which  made  good  sport. 
T£e  King  being  come,  the  scene  opened ;  which  indeed 
'is  very  fine  &nd  magnificent,  and  well  acted,  all  but 
tke  Eunuch,  who  was  so  much  out  that  he  was  hissed 
off  the  stage. 

November  15, 1661.  To  the  Opera  .  .  .  and  there 
did  see  the  secqnd  part  of  "The  Siege  of  Rhodes"  very 
well  done. 

May  20,  1662.  My  wife  and  I  by  coach  to  the 
Opera,  and  there  saw  the  2nd  part  of  "The  Siege  of 
Rhodes,"  but  it  is  not  so  well  done  as  when  Roxalana3 
was  there,  who,  it  is  said,  is  now  owned  by  my  Lord 
of  Oxford. 

December  27,  1662.  To  the  Duke's  Theatre,  and 
saw  the  second  part  of  "Rhodes,"  done  with  the  new 
Roxalana;4  which  do  it  rather  better  in  all  respects 
for  person,  voice,  and  judgment,  than  the  first 
Roxalana. 

September  23,  1664.  So  home,  and  late  reading 
"The  Siege  of  Rhodes"5  to  my  wife. 

2  Elizabeth,  daughter  of  James  I,  widow  of  Frederick,  Elector 
Palatine. 

3  Elizabeth  Davenport.     The  story  of  the  mock  marriage  into 
which  the  Earl  of  Oxford  entrapped  her  is  given  in  the  Memoirs 
of  the  Count  de  Gramont,  Vizetelly  ed.,  II,  101. 

4  Mrs.  Norton. 

5  From  this  reference  as  well  as  from  the  references  of  October 
1,  1665,  and  December  19,  1668,  it  is,  of  course,  impossible  to 
say  whether  both  parts  of  the  play  are  meant  or,  if  not,  which 
part. 


CONTEMPORARY  RESTORATION  PLAYS     145 

October  1,  1665.  We  spent  most  of  the  morning 
talking  and  reading  of  "The  Siege  of  Rhodes,"  which 
is  certainly  (the  more  I  read  it  the  more  I  think  so) 
the  best  poem  that  ever  was  wrote. 

December  6,  1665.  I  spent  the  afternoon  upon  a 
song  of  Solyman's  words  to  Roxalana6  that  I  have 
set. 

August  5,  1666.  A  fine  day,  reading  over  the  sec- 
ond part  of  the  "Siege  of  Rhodes,"  with  great  delight. 

February  13,  1666-67.  I  do  think  and  he  [Dr. 
Clarke]  confesses,  "The  Siege  of  Rhodes"  as  good  as 
ever  was  writ. 

May  21,  1667.  But,  Lord!  how  it  went  against 
my  heart  to  go  away  from  the  very  door  of  the  Duke's 
play-house,  and  my  Lady  Castlemayne's  coach,  and 
many  great  coaches  there,  to  see  "The  Siege  of 
Rhodes."7 

December  19,  1668.  My  wife  read  to  me  out  of 
"The  Siege  of  Rhodes." 


D'Avenant,  Sir  William 

THE  UNFORTUNATE  LOVERS 

March  7, 1663-64.  To  the  Duke's  house,  where  we 
saw  "The  Unfortunate  Lovers";1  but  I  know  not 

k^  6  The  song  beginning  "Beauty  retire;  thou  doest  my  pity 
move,"  from  The  Siege  of  Rhodes,  Part  II,  Act  IV,  Sc.  2. 

7  This  was  probably  a  revival  of  the  second  part  of  the  play, 
first  produced  in  1661. 

*A  tragedy  by  Sir  William  D'Avenant,  licensed  in  1638. 


146  PEPYS  ON  THE  RESTORATION  STAGE 

whether  I  am  grown  more  curious  than  I  was  or  no, 
but  I  was  not  much  pleased  with  it,  though  I  know 
not  where  to  lay  the  fault,  unless  it  was  that  the  house 
was  very  empty,  by  reason  of  a  new  play  at  the  other 
house. 

September  11, 1667.  To  the  Duke  of  York's  play- 
house, and  there  saw  part  of  "The  Ungrateful 
Lovers."2 

April  8, 1668.  To  the  Duke  of  York's  playhouse,3 
where  we  saw  "The  Unfortunate  Lovers,"  no  extraor- 
dinary play,  me  thinks. 

December  3,  1668.  To  the  Duke  of  York's  play- 
house, and  saw  "The  Unfortunate  Lovers";  a  mean 
play,  I  think,  but  some  parts  very  good,  and  excel- 
lently acted. 


D'Avenant,  Sir  William  THE  WITS 

August  15,  1661.  Thence  to  the  Opera,  which 
begins  again  to-day  with  "The  Witts,"1  never  acted 
yet  with  scenes ;  and  the  King  and  Duke  and  Duchess 
were  there;  .  .  .  and  indeed  it  is  a  most  excellent 
play,  and  admirable  scenes. 

2  No  play  of  this  title  has  been  discovered.     It  was  perhaps 
The  Unfortunate  Lovers. 

3  This  was  on  the  day  after  D'Avenant's  death. 

*A  comedy  (1634)  by  Sir  William  D'Avenant.  According 
to  Downes  (Roscius  Anglicanus,  p.  21)  Betterton  played  "Elder 
Pallatine";  Harris,  "Younger  Pallatine";  Mrs.  Davenport, 
Lady  Ample;  and  it  "continu'd  8  Days  Acting  Successively." 


CONTEMPORARY  RESTORATION  PLAYS     147 

August  17,  1661.  To  the  Opera,  and  saw  "The 
Witts"  again,  which  I  like  exceedingly.  The  Queen 
of  Bohemia  was  here  brought  by  my  Lord  Craven. 

August  23,  1661.  I  took  her  [Mrs.  Pepys]  to  the 
Opera,  and  shewed  her  "The  Witts,"  which  I  had 
seen  already  twice,  and  was  most  highly  pleased 
with  it. 

April  18, 1667.  To  the  Duke  of  York's  house,  and 
there  saw  "The  Wits,"  a  play  I  formerly  loved,  and  is 
now  corrected  and  enlarged;2  but  though  I  like  the 
acting,  yet  I  like  not  much  the  play  now. 

April  20,  1667.  Went  to  the  Duke  of  York's 
house,  and  there  saw  "The  Witts"  again,  which  likes 
me  better  than  it  did  the  other  day,  having  much  wit 
in  it. 

January  18,  1668-69.  To  the  Duke  of  York's 
playhouse,  and  there  saw  "The  Witts,"  a  medley  of 
things,  but  some  similes  mighty  good,  though  ill 
mixed. 


Dryden,  John 

AN  EVENING'S  LOVE,  OR  THE  MOCK  ASTROLOGER 

June  19, 1668.  By  and  by  comes  my  wife  and  Deb. 
home,  have  been  at  the  King's  playhouse  to-day, 
thinking  to  spy  me  there;  and  saw  the  new  play, 

2  "These  alterations  are  not  material — but  the  dialogue  is 
considerably  improved,  and  two  short  scenes  are  added"  (Genest, 
I,  40). 


148  PEPYS  ON  THE  RESTORATION  STAGE 

"Evening  Love,"1  of  Dryden's,  which,  though  the 
world  commends,  she  likes  not. 

June  20,  1668.  To  the  King's  house,  and  there  I 
saw  this  new  play  my  wife  saw  yesterday,  and  do  not 
like  it,  it  being  very  smutty,  and  nothing  so  good  as 
"The  Maiden  Queen,"  or  "The  Indian  Emperour," 
of  his  making,  that  I  was  troubled  at  it,  and  my  wife 
tells  me  wholly  (which  he  confesses  a  little  in  the 
epilogue)  taken  out  of  "Illustre  Bassa."2 

June  21,  1668.  After  dinner  she  to  read  in  the 
"Illustre  Bassa"  the  plot  of  yesterday's  play,  which 
is  most  exactly  the  same. 

June  22, 1668.  Saw  an  act  or  two  of  the  new  play 
again,  but  like  it  not.  Calling  this  day  at  Herring- 
man's3  he  tells  me  Dryden  do  himself  call  it  but  a 
fifth-rate  play. 

March  8,  1668-69.  To  the  King's  playhouse,  and 
there  saw  "The  Mocke  Astrologer,"  which  I  have 
often  seen,  and  but  an  ordinary  play. 

1  An  Evening's  Love,  or  the  Mock  Astrologer  (1668)  "coarsens 
materials  drawn  from  the  younger  Corneille  and  from  Moliere's 
Le  Depit  Amoureux"  (G.  H.  Nettleton,  English  Drama  of  the 
Restoration  and  Eighteenth  Century,  p.  57).     Evelyn  saw  this 
performance  and  writes  feelingly:  "To  a  new  play  with  several 
of  my  relations,  'The  Evening  Lover/  a  foolish  plot,  and  very 
prophane;  it  afflicted  me  to  see  how  the  stage  was  degenerated 
and  polluted  by  ye  licentious  times"  (Diary,  Wheatley  ed.,  II, 
130).     Hart  played  Wildblood;   Mohun,   Bellamy;   Wintersell, 
Don   Alonzo;    Burt,    Don   Lopez;    Nell    Gwyn,    Jacinta;    Mrs. 
Knepp,  Beatrix. 

2  Ibrahim  ou  I'illustre  bassa  (1641),  by  Mme.  de  Scuderi. 

3  The    well-known    bookseller    and    publisher    at    the    "Blue 
Anchor"  in  the  New  Exchange. 


CONTEMPORARY  RESTORATION  PLAYS     149 
Dryden,  John  THE  INDIAN  EMPEROR 

January  15,  1666-67.  Here  my  Lord  Bruncker 
would  have  made  me  promise  to  go  with  him  to  a 
play  this  afternoon  where  Knipp  acts  Mrs.  Weaver's 
part1  in  "The  Indian  Emperour,"2  and  he  says  is 
coming  to  be  a  great  actor.  But  I  .  -  .  will  not  go. 
V  August  22,  1667.  To  the  King's  playhouse,  and 
there  saw  "The  Indian  Emperor";  where  I  find  Nell 
come  again,  which  I  am  glad  of;  but  was  most  infi- 
nitely displeased  with  her  being  put  to  act  the  Em- 
perour's  daughter;  which  is  a  great  and  serious  part, 
which  she  do  most  basely.  The  rest  of  the  play, 
though  pretty  good,  was  not  well  acted  by  most  of 
them,  methought,  so  that  I  took  no  great  content  in  it. 

October  28,  1667.  At  the  New  Exchange,  and 
there  buying  "The  Indian  Emperour,"  newly  printed. 

November  11, 1667.  To  the  King's  playhouse,  and 
there  saw  "The  Indian  Emperour,"  a  good  play,  but 
not  so  good  as  people  cry  it  up,  I  think,  though  above 
all  things  Nell's  ill-speaking  of  a  great  part  made  me 
mad. 

January  14,  1667.     They  fell  to  discourse  of  the 

•>  last  night's  work  at  Court,  where  the  ladies  and  the 

Duke  of  Monmouth  and  others  acted  "The  Indian 

1  Downes  (Roscius  Anglwanus,  p.  9)  states  that  Mrs.  Marshall 
f    played  Almeria  and  Nell  Gwyn,   Cydaria.     It  is  not  clear  to 

which  part  Pepys  is  here  referring.  Mohun  was  Montezuma; 
Hart,  Cortez;  Burt,  Vasquez;  Wintersell  and  Kynaston,  Odmar 
and  Guyomar;  and  Cartwright,  the  High  Priest. 

2  A   sequel    (1665),   also   in   heroic   couplets,   to    The   Indian 
Queen. 


150  PEPYS  ON  THE  RESTORATION  STAGE 

Emperour";  wherein  they  told  me  these  things  most 
remarkable:  that  not  any  woman  but  the  Duchess  of 
Monmouth  and  Mrs.  Cornwallis  did  any  thing  but 
like  fools  and  stocks,  but  that  these  two  did  do  most 
extraordinary  well:  that  not  any  man  did  anything 
well  but  Captain  O 'Bryan,  who  spoke  and  did  well, 
but,  above  all  things  did  dance  most  incomparably. 

March  28,  1668.  To  the  King's  house,  and  there 
saw  the  "Indian  Emperour,"  a  very  good  play  indeed. 

April  21,  1668.  To  the  King's  house,  and  saw 
"The  Indian  Emperour." 


Dryden,  John 

SECRET  LOVE,  OR  THE  MAIDEN  QUEEN 

March  2,  1666-67.  After  dinner  with  my  wife,  to 
the  King's  house  to  see  "The  Mayden  Queene,"1  a 
new  play  of  Dryden's,  mightily  commended  for  the 
regularity  of  it,  and  the  strain  and  wit ;  and  the  truth 
is,  there  is  a  comical  part  done  by  Nell,2  which  is 
Florimell,  that  I  never  can  hope  to  see  the  like  done 
again,  by  man  or  woman. 

March  25,  1667.  To  the  King's  playhouse.  .  .  . 
Sir  W.  Pen  and  I  in  the  pit,  and  here  saw  "The 

1  An  heroic  drama  (1667)  with  comic  under-plot.     Evelyn  saw 
this  play — to  which  he  refers  as  "The  Virgin  Queene,  a  play 
written  by  Mr.  Dryden," — on  March   14  of  this  year   (Diary, 
Wheatley  ed.,  II,  215). 

2  Florimel,  beloved  of  Celadon,  was  one  of  Nell  Gwyn's  most 
popular  impersonations. 


CONTEMPORARY  RESTORATION  PLAYS     151 

Mayden  Queene"  again;  which  indeed  the  more  I  see 
the  more  I  like,  and  is  an  excellent  play,  and  so  done 
by  Nell,  her  merry  part,  as  cannot  be  better  done  in 
nature,  I  think. 

May  24, 1667.  To  the  King's  playhouse,  and  there 
saw  "The  Mayden  Queene,"  which,  though  I  have 
often  seen,  yet  pleases  me  infinitely,  it  being  impos- 
sible, I  think,  ever  to  have  the  Queen's  part,  which  is 
very  good  and  passionate,  and  Florimel's  part,  which 
is  the  most  comicall  that  was  ever  made  for  woman, 
ever  done  better  than  they  two  are  done  by  young 
Marshall3  and  Nelly. 

August  23,  1667.  To  the  King's  house,  and  saw 
"The  Mayden  Queene,"  which  pleases  us  mightily. 

January  18,  1667-68.  I  bought  "The  Mayden 
Queene,"  a  play  newly  printed,  which  I  like  at  the 
King's  house  so  well,  of  Mr.  Dryden's,  which  he  him- 
self, in  his  preface,  seems  to  brag  of,4  and  indeed  is 
a  good  play. 

January  24,  1667-68.  I  to  the  King's  playhouse, 
to  fetch  my  wife,  and  there  saw  the  best  part  of  "The 
Mayden  Queene,"  which,  the  more  I  see,  the  more  I 
love,  and  think  one  of  the  best  plays  I  ever  saw,  and 
is  certainly  the  best  acted  of  any  thing  ever  the  House 
did,  and  particularly  Becke  Marshall,  to  admiration. 

3  Rebecca  Marshall  played  the  heroic  Queen  of  Sicily.     The 
other  principal  parts  were  taken  as  follows,  according  to  Roscius 
Anglicanus    (p.    7):    Philocles    by    Mohun;    Lysimantes,    Burt; 
Celadon,  Hart;  Asteria,  Mrs.  Knepp;  Melissa,  Mrs.  Corey. 

4  In  his  dedication  of  the  play  to  the  King,  Dryden  remarks 
that  he  has  "ever  valued"  it  "above  the  rest  of  my  follies  of  this 
kind/'  and  proceeds  to  defend  it  against  the  critics. 


152  PEPYS  ON  THE  RESTORATION  STAGE 

January  1, 1668-69.  To  the  King's  playhouse,  and 
there  in  a  box  saw  "The  Mayden  Queene." 

January  IS,  1668-69.  To  the  King's  playhouse, 
and  there  saw,  I  think,  "The  Mayden  Queene." 


Dryden,  John 
SIR  MARTIN  MAR- ALL,  OR  THE  FEIGNED  INNOCENCE 

August  16, 1667.  To  the  Duke's  playhouse,  where 
we  saw  the  new  play  acted  yesterday,  "The  Feign 
Innocence,  or  Sir  Martin  Marr-all";1  a  play  made 
by  my  Lord  Duke  of  Newcastle,  but  as  everybody 
says,  corrected  by  Dryden.  It  is  the  most  entire  piece 
of  mirth,  a  complete  farce  from  one  end  to  the  other, 
that  certainly  ever  was  writ.  I  never  laughed  so  in 
all  my  life.  I  laughed  till  my  head  [ached]  all  the 

1  Sir  Martin  Mar-all,  or  The  Feign'd  Innocence,  an  adaptation 
of  Moliere's  L'Etourdi,  which  was  entered  on  the  books  of  the 
Stationers'  Company  as  the  production  of  the  Duke  of  Newcastle, 
was  published  in  1668.  Downes  says  (Roscius  Anglicanus,  p. 
28) :  "The  Duke  of  Newcastle  giving  Mr.  Dryden  a  bare  Trans- 
lation of  it,  out  of  a  Comedy  of  the  Famous  French  Poet  Mon- 
sieur Moleiro;  he  Adapted  the  Part  purposely  for  the  Mouth  of 
Mr.  Nokes,  curiously  Polishing  the  Whole.  .  .  .  This  and  Love 
in  a  Tub  got  the  Company  more  Money  than  any  preceding 
Comedy."  The  part  of  Sir  Martin  was  taken  by  Nokes;  Harris 
was  Warner;  Smith,  Sir  John  Swallow;  Young,  Lord  Dart- 
mouth; and  Mrs.  Davis,  Mrs.  Millicent.  Downes  makes  the 
further  statement  that  the  Dorset  Gardens  theatre  was  opened 
November  9,  1671,  with  Sir  Martin  Mar-all  "notwithstanding 
it  had  been  Acted  30  Days  before  in  Lincolns-Inn  Fields,  and 
above  4  times  at  Court."  Langbaine  and  later  dramatic  his- 
torians ascribe  this  play  to  Dryden. 


CONTEMPORARY  RESTORATION  PLAYS     153 

evening  and  night  with  the  laughing;  and  at  very 
good  wit  therein,  not  fooling.  The  house  full. 

August  19,  1667.  To  the  Duke  of  York's  house, 
all  alone,  and  there  saw  "Sir  Martin  Marr-all"  again, 
though  I  saw  him  but  two  days  since,  and  do  find  it 
the  most  comical  play  that  ever  I  saw  in  my  life. 

August  20,  1667.  Thence,  ...  to  the  Duke's 
Playhouse,  .  .  .  and  there  saw  "Sir  Martin  Marr-all" 
again,  which  I  have  now  seen  three  times,  and  it  hath 
been  acted  but  four  times,  and  still  find  it  a  very 
ingenious  play,  and  full  of  variety. 

September  28, 1667.  To  the  Duke  of  York's  play- 
house, and  there  saw  a  piece  of  "Sir  Martin  Marrall," 
with  great  delight,  though  I  have  seen  it  so  often,  and 
so  home. 

October  8,  1667.  Some  other  pleasant  simplicities 
of  the  fellow  did  give  occasion  to  us  to  call  him  Sir 
'Martin  Marrall.  .  .  .  Away  to  Cambridge,  it  being 
foul,  rainy  weather,  and  there  did  take  up  at  the  Rose 
for  the  sake  of  Mrs.  Dorothy  Drawwater,  the  vint- 
ner's daughter,  which  is  mentioned  in  the  play  of  Sir 
Martin  Marrall.2 

October  14, 1667.  To  the  Duke  of  York's  House, 
and  there  went  in  for  nothing  into  the  pit,  at  the  last 
act,  to  see  Sir  Martin  Marr-all,  still  being  pleased 
with  the  humour  of  the  play,  almost  above  all  that 
ever  I  saw. 

January  1,  1667-68.  To  the  Duke  of  York's 
playhouse,  and  there  saw  "Sir  Martin  Mar-all"; 
which  I  have  seen  so  often,  and  yet  am  mightily 

2  Cf .  Act.  V,  Sc.  1 :  "Her  name  was  Dorothy,  daughter  to  one 
Draw-water,  a  vintner  at  the  Rose." 


154  PEPYS  ON  THE  RESTORATION  STAGE 

pleased  with  it,  and  think  it  mighty  witty,  and  the 
fullest  of  proper  matter  for  mirth  that  ever  was 
writ;  and  I  do  clearly  see  that  they  do  improve  in 
their  acting  of  it.  Here  a  mighty  company  of  citi- 
zens, 'prentices,  and  others. 

April  25, 1668.  To  the  Duke  of  York's  playhouse, 
and  there  saw  "Sir  Martin  Marr-all,"  which,  the 
more  I  see,  the  more  I  like. 

May  22,  1668.  Thence  to  the  Duke  of  York's 
house  to  a  play,  and  saw  Sir  Martin  Marr-all,  where 
the  house  is  full;  and  though  I  have  seen  it,  I  think, 
ten  times,  yet  the  pleasure  I  have  is  yet  as  great  as 
ever,  and  is  undoubtedly  the  best  comedy  ever  was 
wrote. 


Dry  den,  John  THE  RIVAL  LADIES 

August  4,  1664.  He  [Sir  W.  Pen]  did  carry  me 
to  a  play,  and  pay  for  me  at  the  King's  house,  which 
is  "The  Rivall  Ladys,"1  a  very  innocent  and  most 
pretty  witty  play.  I  was  much  pleased  with  it,  and  it 
being  given  me,  I  look  upon  it  as  no  breach  to  my 
oathe. 

July  18,  1666.  To  Woolwich,  reading  "the  Rivall 
Ladys"  all  the  way,  and  find  it  a  most  pleasant  and 
fine  writ  play. 

August  2,  1666.  To  Woolwich,  reading  and 
making  an  end  of  the  "Rival  Ladys,"  and  find  it  a 
very  pretty  play. 

1  A  tragi-comedy  (1664)  by  John  Dryden,  based  on  a  Spanish 
plot.  Genest  (I,  50)  says  of  this  play  under  this  date,  "Not 
first  time." 


CONTEMPORARY  RESTORATION  PLAYS     155 

Dry  den,  John  THE  WILD  GALLANT 

February  23,  1662-63.  We  took  coach  and  to 
Court,  and  there  got  good  places,  and  saw  "The 
Wilde  Gallant,"1  performed  by  the  King's  house,  but 
it  was  ill  acted,  and  the  play  so  poor  a  thing  as  I  never 
saw  in  my  life  almost,  and  so  little  answering  the 
name,  that  from  beginning  to  end,  I  could  not,  nor 
can  at  this  time,  tell  certainly  which  was  the  Wild 
Gallant.  The  King  did  not  seem  pleased  at  all,  all 
the  whole  play,  nor  any  body  else,  though  Mr.  Clerke 
whom  we  met  here  did  commend  it  to  us. 


Dryden  and  Sir  Robert  Howard 

THE  INDIAN  QUEEN 

V 

January  27 ,  1663-64.  In  the  way  observing  the 
streete  full  of  coaches  at  the  new  play  "The  Indian 
Queene";1  which  for  show,  they  say,  exceeds  "Henry 
he  Eighth." 

February  1,  1663-64.     To  the  King's  Theatre,  it 

1  Dryden's  first  comedy  (1663).  Evelyn  had  seen  its  first 
performance  on  February  5  of  this  year.  (Cf.  Diary,  Wheatley 
ed.,  II,  158.)  Genest  (I,  35)  asserts  that  "it  was  unsuccessful 
at  this  time^  and  was  brought  out  again  in  1667."  For  Dryden's 
alteration  of  The  Tempest  (with  D'Avenant),  see  pp.  75-77  of 
this  book. 

1  A  rhymed  heroic  tragedy  (1664)  by  Sir  Robert  Howard  and 
Dryden.  Evelyn  saw  it  acted  on  February  5  of  this  year.  He 
calls  it  "a  tragedie  well  written,  so  beautified  with  rich  scenes 
as  the  like  had  never  ben  seen  here,  or  haply  (except  rarely) 
elsewhere  on  a  mercenary  theater"  (Diary,  Wheatley  ed.,  II, 
163). 


156  PEPYS  ON  THE  RESTORATION  STAGE 

being  a  new  month,  and  once  a  month  I  may  go,2  and 
there  saw  "The  Indian  Queene"  acted;  which  indeed 
is  a  most  pleasant  show,  and  beyond  my  expectation; 
the  play  good,  but  spoiled  with  the  ryme,  which 
breaks  the  sense.3  But  above  my  expectation  most, 
the  eldest  Marshall4  did  do  her  part  most  excellently 
well  as  I  ever  heard  woman  in  my  life;  but  her  voice 
not  so  sweet  as  lanthe's ;  but,  however,  we  came  home 
mightily  contented. 

2  According  to  the  terms  of  one  of  his  several  "vows  against 
plays." 

3  It  will  be  seen  from  this  entry  that  Restoration  spectators 
did  not  without  exception  welcome  the  heroic  couplet  in  tragedy. 

4  Anne    Marshall,   doubtless   in   the   title   part.      Mrs.    Aphra 
Behn  gives  the  following  interesting  description  of  the  Queen's 
realistic  costume  in  The  History  of  OroonoJco:  Or,  The  Royal 
Slave,  in  an  account  of  the  trade  with  the  natives  of  Surinam: 
"We  trade  for  Feathers,  which  they  order  into  all  Shapes,  make 
themselves  little  short  Habits  of  'em,  and  glorious  Wreaths  for 
their  Heads,  Necks,  Arms  and  Legs,  whose  Tinctures  are  incon- 
ceivable.    I  had  a  set  of  these  presented  to  me,  and  I  gave  'em 
to  the  King's  Theatre;  it  was  the  Dress  of  the  Indian  Queen, 
infinitely  admir'd  by  Persons  of  Quality;  and  was  inimitable." 
Like  other  statements  made  by  Mrs.   Behn  which  would  seem 
to  show  that  she  had  actually  visited  Oroonoko,  this  has  been 
challenged  by  Mr.  Ernest  Bernbaum,  who  thus  laughs  it  out  of 
court:  "To  think  of  Nell  Gwynn  in  the  true  costume  of  a  Carib 
belle  is  indeed  ludicrous"  (Mrs.  Eehn's  Oroonoko,  in  The  George 
Lyman   Kittredge   Anniversary   Papers,   p.    432).      The   matter 
cannot,  however,  be  so  briefly  dismissed.     It  is  improbable  that 
Mrs.  Behn  would  have  gone  out  of  her  way  to  expose  herself  to 
contradiction  upon  so  easily  verifiable  a  statement.     And  we  may 
infer  from  the  play  itself  that  there  was  some  attempt  at  realism 
in  the  costumes,  however  slight  or  "ludicrous"  it  may  have  been. 
The  stage  direction  before  Act  V  reads:  "Four  Priests  in  habits 


CONTEMPORARY  RESTORATION  PLAYS     157 

June  27 ,  1668.  To  the  King's  playhouse,  and  saw 
"The  Indian  Queene,"  but  do  not  doat  upon  Nan 
Marshall's  acting  therein,  as  the  world  talks  of  her 
excellence  therein. 


Etherege,  Sir  George 

THE  COMICAL  REVENGE,  OR  LOYE  IN  A  TUB 

January  4, 1664-65.  To  "Love  in  a  Tubb,"1  which 
is  very  merry,  but  only  so  by  gesture,  not  wit  at  all, 
which  methinks  is  beneath  the  [Duke's]  House. 

October  29,  1666.  To  White  Hall  and  into  the 
new  play-house  there,  the  first  time  I  ever  was  there, 
and  the  first  play  I  have  seen  since  before  the  great 
plague.2  ...  By  and  by  the  King  and  Queene,  Duke 
and  Duchesse,  and  all  the  great  ladies  of  the  Court; 
which,  indeed,  was  a  fine  sight.  But  the  play  being 
"JLove  in  a  Tub,"  a  silly  play,  and  though  done  by 
the  Duke's  people,  yet  having  neither  Betterton  nor 
his  wife,3  and  the  whole  thing  done  ill,  and  being  ill 

of  white  and  red  Feathers";  and  in  the  Epilogue,  spoken  by 
Montezuma,  there  is  this  reference  to  the  play: 

"Our  naked  Indians  then,  when  Wits  appear, 
Would  as  soon  chuse  to  have  the  Spaniards  here." 

1  The  Comical  Revenge,  or  Love  in  a  Tub  (1664),  Etherege's 
first   play.      Evelyn   mentions    it    on   April    27,    1664:    "Saw   a 
facetious  comedy  called  'Love  in  a  Tub'  "  (Diary,  Wheatley  ed., 
II,  164). 

2  Since  May  15,  1665, — to  be  exact, — when  he  had  seen  Love's 
Mistress  at  the  King's  theatre. 

3  Betterton  usually  acted  Lord  Beaufort.     Mrs.  Betterton  (as 


158  PEPYS  ON  THE  RESTORATION  STAGE 

also,  I  had  no  manner  of  pleasure  in  the  play.  Be- 
sides, the  House,  though  very  fine,  yet  bad  for  the 
voice,  for  hearing.  The  sight  of  the  ladies,  indeed, 
was  exceedingly  noble;  and  above  all  my  Lady 
Castlemayne.  The  play  done  by  ten  o'clock.  I 
carried  them  all  home,  and  then  home  myself,  and- 
well  satisfied  with  the  sight,  but  not  the  play,  we  with 
great  content  to  bed. 

April  29, 1668.  To  the  Duke  of  York's  playhouse, 
and  there  saw  "Love  in  a  Tubb";  and,  after  the  play 
done,  I  stepped  up  to  Harris's  dressing-room,  where 
I  never  was,  and  there  I  observe  much  company  come 
to  him,  and  the  Witts,  to  talk,  after  the  play  is  done, 
and  to  assign  meetings. 


Etherege,  Sir  George      SHE  WOULD  IF  SHE  COULD 

February  63  1667-68.  To  the  Duke  of  York's 
playhouse;  where  a  new  play  of  Etherige's,  called 
"She  Would  if  she  Could,"1  and  though  I  was  there 
by  two  o'clock,  there  was  1000  people  put  back  that 
^ould  not  have  room  in  the  pit :  and  I  at  last,  because 
my  wife  was  there,  made  shift  to  get  into  the  18d. 
box  and  there  saw ;  but,  Lord !  how  full  was  the  house, 
and  how  silly  the  play,  there  being  nothing  in  the 
world  good  in  it,  and  few  people  pleased  in  it.  The 

Graciana),  Harris  (as  Sir  Frederick  Frolic),  Smith,  Nokes, 
Sandford,  and  Mrs.  Davis  (as  Aurelia)  were  in  the  cast. 
According  to  Roscius  Anglicanus  (pp.  24-25),  the  play  brought 
the  house  <£  1,000  in  a  month. 

1  The  second  comedy  (1668)  by  Sir  George  Etherege. 


CONTEMPORARY  RESTORATION  PLAYS     159 

King  was  there ;  but  I  sat  mightily  behind,  and  could 
see  but  little,  and  hear  not  all.  The  play  being  done, 
I  into  the  pit.  .  .  .  There  I  found  .  .  .  Sidly,  and 
Etherige,  the  poet;  the  last  of  whom  I  did  hear 
mightily  find  fault  with  the  actors,2  that  they  were 
out  of  humour,  and  had  not  their  parts  perfect,  and 
that  Harris  did  do  nothing,  nor  could  so  much  as 
sing  a  ketch  in  it;  and  so  was  mightily  concerned; 
while  all  the  rest  did,  through  the  whole  pit,  blame 
the  play  as  a  silly,  dull  thing,  though  there  was  some- 
thing very  roguish  and  witty;  but  the  design  of  the 
play,  and  end,  mighty  insipid. 

February  1,  1668-69.  To  the  Duke  of  York's 
playhouse,  and  there  saw  "She  Would  if  She  Could." 

Evelyn,  John  THYRSANDER  (?) 

November  5,  1665.  By  water  to  Deptford,  and 
there  made  a  visit  to  Mr.  Evelyn.  .  .  .  He  read  me 
part  of  a  play1  or  two  of  his  making,  very  good,  but 
not  as  he  conceits  them,  I  think,  to  be. 

2  Harris  was  Sir  Joslin  Jolly;  Nokes,  Sir  Oliver  Cockwood; 
Smith,  Courtall;  Young,  Freeman;  Mrs.  Shadwell,  Lady  Cock- 
wood;  Mrs.  Davis,  Gatty.  "It  took  well/'  says  Downes  (Roscius 
Anglicanus,  pp.  28-29),  "but  Inferior  to  Love  in  a  Tub." 

1  In  a  letter  of  February  9,  1664-65,  to  Lord  Cornebery, 
Evelyn  writes:  "You  know,  my  Ld,  that  I  (who  have  written  a 
play  &  am  a  scurvy  poet  too  some  times)  am  far  from  Puri- 
tanisme"  (Diary,  Wheatley  ed.,  Ill,  302).  The  play  here  re- 
ferred to  and  one  of  those  later  read  to  Pepys  was  probably 
"Thyrsander"  a  "Tragy-Comedy,"  mentioned  in  one  of  the 
MSS.  at  Wotton  in  a  list  entitled  "Things  I  would  write  out 
faire  and  reform  if  I  had  leasure"  (Ibid.,  Ill,  194). 


160     PEPYS  ON  THE  RESTORATION  STAGE 
Falkland,  Lord  THE  MARRIAGE  NIGHT 

March  21, 1666-67.  I  alone  out  and  to  the  Duke  of 
York's  playhouse,  where  unexpectedly  I  come  to  see 
only  the  young  men  and  women  of  the  house  act ;  they 
having  liberty  to  act  for  their  own  profit  on  Wednes- 
days and  Fridays  this  Lent:  and  the  play  they  did 
yesterday,  being  Wednesday,  was  so  well-taken,  that 
they  thought  fit  to  venture  it  publickly  to-day;  a 
play  of  my  Lord  Falkland's  called  "The  Wedding 
Night"1  a  kind  of  tragedy,  and  some  things  very 
good  in  it,  but  the  whole  together,  I  thought,  not  so. 
I  confess  I  was  well  enough  pleased  with  my  seeing  it : 
and  the  people  did  do  better,  without  the  great  actors, 
than  I  did  expect,  but  yet  far  short  of  what  they  do 
when  they  are  there,  which  I  was  glad  to  find  the 
difference  of. 


Flecknoe,  Richard  (?)  THE  LADIES  A  LA  MODE 

September  15,  1668.  To  the  King's  playhouse,  to 
see  a  new  play,  acted  but  yesterday,  a  translation  out 
of  French  by  Dryden,  called  "The  Ladys  a  la 
Mode"  r1  so  mean  a  thing  as,  when  they  come  to  say 

1  Should  be  The  Marriage  Night,  a  tragi-comedy  by  Henry 
Gary,  Viscount  Falkland,  published  in  1664.  (Cf.  Genest,  I, 
75.)  It  has  been  generally  stated  that  this  play  was  never  acted. 

1  Pepys  appears  to  have  been  wrongly  informed.  The  play 
which  seems  best  to  fit  the  requirements  of  date,  title,  and  sug- 
gestion of  French  origin  is  Richard  Flecknoe's  Damoselles  a  la 
Mode,  printed  in  1667,  which  according  to  the  preface  was 


CONTEMPORARY  RESTORATION  PLAYS     161 

it  would  be  acted  again  to-morrow,  both  he  that  said 
it,  Beeson,2  and  the  pit  fell  a-laughing,  there  being 
this  day  not  a  quarter  of  the  pit  full. 


Green,  Alexander  THE  POLITICIAN  CHEATED 

July  29,  1663.  To  see  Sir  W.  Pen  at  Deptford, 
reading  by  the  way  a  most  ridiculous  play,  a  new  one, 
called  "The  Politician  Cheated."1 


Holden,  T.  THE  GHOSTS 

April  17,  1665.  We  all  to  a  play,  "The  Ghosts,"1 
at  the  Duke's  house,  but  a  very  simple  play. 

"taken  out  of  several  Excellent  pieces  of  Moliere."  Langbaine, 
on  the  authority  of  this  preface,,  states  (p.  201)  that  it  was 
designed  "to  have  been  acted  by  the  King's  Servants  .  .  .  but 
I  know  not  for  what  reason  they  refus'd  it."  Langbaine's  state- 
ment would,  however,  have  no  bearing  upon  the  performance 
described  by  Pepys,  which  took  place  the  year  after  Flecknoe's 
Damoselles  a  la  Mode  was  printed. 

2  William  Beeston. 

*A  comedy  by  Alexander  Green,  published  in  1663,  is  men- 
tioned by  Genest  (X,  138)  in  his  chapter  on  plays  "printed  but 
never  acted." 

1  Downes  (Roscius  Anglicanus,  p.  26)  attributes  this  comedy 
(1665?)  to  Holden.  Hazlitt  (A  Manual  for  the  Collector  and 
Amateur  of  Old  English  Plays,  p.  95)  states  that  it  was  by  T. 
Holden  and  was  "not  printed." 


162     PEPYS  ON  THE  RESTORATION  STAGE 

Howard,  Edward  THE  CHANGE  OF  CROWNS 

April  15,  1667 .  To  the  King's  house  by  chance, 
where  a  new  play:  so  full  as  I  never  saw  it;  I  forced 
to  stand  all  the  while  close  to  the  very  door  till  I  took 
cold,  and  many  people  went  away  for  lack  of  room. 
The  King,  and  Queene,  and  Duke  of  York  and 
Duchesse  there,  and  all  the  Court,  and  Sir  W.  Cov- 
entry.1 The  play  called  "The  Change  of  Crownes";2 
a  play  of  Ned  Howard's,  the  best  that  ever  I  saw  at 
that  house,  being  a  great  play  and  serious ;  only  Lacy 
did  act  the  country-gentleman  come  up  to  Court, 
who  do  abuse  the  Court  with  all  the  imaginable  wit 
and  plainness  about  selling  of  places,  and  doing 
everything  for  money.  The  play  took  very  much. 
.  .  .  Then  home,  .  .  .  mightily  pleased  with  the  new 
play. 

April  16,  1667.  Knipp  tells  me  the  King  was  so 
angry  at  the  liberty  taken  by  Lacy's  part  to  abuse 
him  to  his  face,  that  he  commanded  they  should  act 
no  more,  till  Moone3  went  and  got  leave  for  them  to 
act  again,  but  not  this  play. 

Howard,  Edward  THE  USURPER 

January  2,  1663-64.  To  the  King's  house,  and 
there  met  Mr.  Nicholson,  my  old  colleague,  and  saw 

1  Sir   William    Coventry    (1628-1686),    Commissioner    of   the 
Navy,  and  Privy  Councillor,  often  mentioned  in  the  Diary  in 
terms  of  praise. 

2  "This  play/'  says  Genest  (I,  69),  "is  not  printed — it  seems 
to  have  been  a  T.C.  by  E.  Howard." 

8  Michael  Mohun. 


CONTEMPORARY  RESTORATION  PLAYS     163 

> 

"The  Usurper,"1  which  is  no  good  play,  though  better 
than  what  I  saw  yesterday. 

December  2, 1668.  To  the  King's  playhouse,  .  .  . 
and  there  saw  "The  Usurper";  a  pretty  good  play,  in 
all  but  what  is  designed  to  resemble  Cromwell  and 
Hugh  Peters,2  which  is  mighty  silly. 


Howard,  James 

ALL  MISTAKEN,  OR  THE  MAD  COUPLE 

September  20,  1667.  To  the  King's  playhouse, 
and  there  saw  "The  Mad  Couple,"1  which  I  do  not 
remember  that  I  have  seen;  it  is  a  pretty  pleasant 
play. 

December  28,  1667.  To  the  King's  house,  and 
there  saw  "The  Mad  Couple,"  which  is  but  an  ordi- 
nary play;  but  only  Nell's  and  Hart's  mad  parts2 
are  most  excellently  done,  but  especially  her's :  which 
makes  it  a  miracle  to  me  to  think  how  ill  she  do  any 
serious  part,  as,  the  other  day,  just  like  a  fool  or 
changeling;  and  in  a  mad  part,  do  beyond  all  imita- 
tion almost.  It  pleased  us  mightily  to  see  the  natural 

1A  tragedy  (1664)  by  Edward  Howard,  printed  in  1668. 
Pepys  had  seen  Henry  VIII  on  January  1. 

2  The  character  supposed  to  resemble  Cromwell  was  Damocles, 
while  Hugo  de  Petra  was  intended  for  Hugh  Peters,  and  "Cleom- 
enes  probably  for  General  Monck"  (Genest,  I,  72). 

1  All  Mistaken,  or  The  Mad  Couple  (1667),  was  a  comedy  by 
James  Howard. 

2  The  "mad  couple"  were  Philidor  and  Mirida,  acted  by  Hart 
and  Nell  Gwyn  respectively. 


164  PEPYS  ON  THE  RESTORATION  STAGE 

affection  of  a  poor  woman,  the  mother  of  one  of  the 
children3  brought  on  the  stage:  the  child  crying,  she 
by  force  got  upon  the  stage,  and  took  up  her  child 
and  carried  it  away  off  of  the  stage  from  Hart. 
Many  fine  faces  here  to-day. 

July  29, 1668.    To  the  King's  house,  and  saw  "The 
Mad  Couple,"  a  mean  play  altogether. 


Howard,  James  THE  ENGLISH  MONSIEUR 

December  8, 1666.  To  the  King's  playhouse,  which 
troubles  me  since,  and  hath  cost  me  a  forfeit  of  105., 
which  I  have  paid,  and  there  did  see  a  good  part  of 
"The  English  Monsieur,"1  which  is  a  mighty  pretty 
play,  very  witty  and  pleasant.  And  the  women  do 
very  well;  but,  above  all,  little  Nelly,2  that  I  am 
mightily  pleased  with  the  play,  and  much  with  the 
House,  more  than  ever  I  expected,  the  women  doing 
better  than  ever  I  expected,  and  very  fine  women. 

April  7, 1668.  To  the  King's  playhouse,  and  there 
saw  "The  English  Monsieur";  sitting  for  privacy 
sake  in  an  upper  box :  the  play  hath  much  mirth  in  it 
as  to  that  particular  humour. 

3  In  an  attempt  to  collect  money  from  their  father,  Philidor, 
several  babes  in  arms,  his  illegitimate  offspring,  are  brought  on 
the  stage  by  their  nurses  at  various  times  during  the  play. 

1  A  comedy  by  James  Howard,  printed  in  1674.     The  forfeit 
was  paid  in  accordance  with  one  of  Pepys's  vows. 

2  Nell   Gywn   played   the   part   of   Lady   Wealthy.      This    is 
the  year   following  her   debut  in  the   role   of   Cydaria   in   The 
Indian  Emperor,  and  is  the  first  time  Pepys  mentions  seeing  her 
on  the  stage. 


CONTEMPORARY  RESTORATION  PLAYS     165 
Howard,  Sir  Robert  THE  COMMITTEE 

June  12,  1663.  To  the  Royall  Theatre,  and  there 
saw  "The  Committee,"1  a  merry  but  indifferent  play, 
only  Lacey's  part,  an  Irish  footman,2  is  beyond  imagi- 
nation. 

August  13,  1667.  To  the  King's  house,  and  there 
saw  "The  Committee,"  which  I  went  to  with  some 
prejudice,  not  liking  it  before,  but  I  do  now  find  it  a 
very  good  play,  and  a  great  deal  of  good  invention  in 
it ;  but  Lacy's  part  is  so  well  performed  that  it  would 
set  off  anything. 

October  28,  1667.  To  the  King's  house,  and  there 
saw  "The  Committee,"  a  play  I  like  well. 

May  15, 1668.  To  the  King's  house,  and  there  saw 
the  last  act  of  "The  Committee,"  thinking  to  have 
seen  Knepp  there,  but  she  did  not  act. 

1  The  Committee  (1662)  was  Sir  Robert  Howard's  most  popu- 
lar comedy.     Evelyn  had  seen  this  play  on  November  29,  1662, 
at  the  "Queene  Mother's  Court."     He  calls  it  "a  ridiculous  play 
of  Sir  R.  Howard,  where  ye  mimic  Lacy  acted  the  Irish  footeman 
to  admiration"  (Diary,  Wheatley  ed.,  II,  155).     The  Cambridge 
History  of  English  Literature  (VIII,  121)  gives  the  date  of  its 
production  as  1665,  which  Pepys  and  Evelyn  show  is  an  error, 
as  Professor  Nettleton  has  recently  pointed  out  (English  Drama 
of  the  Restoration,  and  Eighteenth  Century,  p.  111). 

2  "Teague,    an    early    Irish    comic    character,    if    deficient    in 
dialect,  has  Irish  wit  enough  to  'take  the  Covenant'  by  stealing 
a  copy  of  it  from  a  bookseller"  (Ibid.).     For  The  Indian  Queen, 
in  which  Sir  Robert  Howard  collaborated  with  Dryden,  see  p. 
155  of  this  book. 


166  PEPYS  ON  THE  RESTORATION  STAGE 

Howard,  Sir  Robert 

THE  GREAT  FAVOURITE,  OR  THE  DUKE  or  LERMA 

January  11,  1667-68.  She  [Knepp]  told  me  also 
of  ...  another  play  called,  "The  Duke  of  Lerma."1 

February  20,  1667-68.  By  one  o'clock  to  the 
King's  house:  a  new  play,  "The  Duke  of  Lerma"  of 
Sir  Robert  Howard's :  where  the  King  and  the  Court 
was;  and  Knepp  and  Nell  spoke  the  prologue  most 
excellently,  especially  Knepp,  who  spoke  beyond  any 
creature  I  ever  heard.  The  play  designed  to  re- 
proach our  King  with  his  mistresses,  that  I  was 
troubled  for  it,  and  expected  it  should  be  interrupted ; 
but  it  ended  all  well,  which  salved  all.  The  play  a 
well-writ  and  good  play,  only  its  design  I  did  not 
like  of  reproaching  the  King,  but  altogether  a  very 
good,  and  most  serious  play. 

April  18,  1668.  To  the  King's  playhouse,  Is..,  and 
to  the  play  of  the  "Duke  of  Lerma,"  2s.  Qd.,  and 
oranges  Is. 


Howard,  Sir  Robert  THE  SURPRISAL 

April  8,  1667.  To  the  King's  house,  and  saw  the 
latter  end  of  the  "Surprisall,"1  wherein  was  no  great 
matter,  I  thought,  by  what  I  saw  there. 

August  26,  1667.    To  the  King's  playhouse,  .   .   . 

1  The  Great  Favourite,  or  the  Duke  of  Lerma  (1668),  is  a 
tragedy  with  "some  scenes  in  blank  Verse,  others  in  Rhime." 

1  A  comedy  by  Sir  Robert  Howard,  previously  published  in 
Foure  New  Plays  (1665). 


CONTEMPORARY  RESTORATION  PLAYS     167 

and  saw  "The  Surprizall,"  a  very  mean  play,  I 
thought :  or  else  it  was  because  I  was  out  of  humour, 
and  but  very  little  company  in  the  house. 

December  26, 1667.  To  the  King's  playhouse,  and 
there  saw  "The  Surprizall";  which  did  not  please  me 
to-day,  the  actors  not  pleasing  me;  and  especially 
Nell's  acting  of  a  serious  part,2  which  she  spoils. 

April  17,  1668.  To  the  King's  house,  and  saw 
"The  Surprizall,"  where  base  singing,  only  Knepp,3 
who  come,  after  her  song  in  the  clouds,  to  me  in  the 
pit,  and  there  oranges,  2s. 

May  1, 1668.  To  the  King's  play-house,  and  there 
saw  "The  Surprizall":  and  a  disorder  in  the  pit  by  its 
raining  in,  from  the  cupola  at  top. 


•Killigrew,  Thomas  CLARACILLA 

July  4,  1661.  In  the  afternoon  I  went  to  the 
Theatre,  and  there  saw  "Claracilla,"1  (the  first  time 
I  ever  saw  it),  well  acted.  But  strange  to  see  this 
house,  that  used  to  be  so  thronged,  now  empty  since 
the  Opera  begun;2  and  so  will  continue  for  a  while, 
I  believe. 

January  5,  1662-63.     To  the  Cockpitt,3  where  we 

2  This  "serious  part"  was  Samira. 

3  Mrs.  Knepp  played  the  part  of  Emelia. 

1  A  tragi-comedy  by  Thomas  Killigrew,  which  had  been  acted 
before  the  Restoration  in  1636. 

2  The  Opera  had  "begun"   towards   the  end  of   June,    1661, 
according  to  Pepys. 

3  In  Whitehall  Palace. 


168  PEPYS  ON  THE  RESTORATION  STAGE 

saw  "Claracilla,"  a  poor  play,  done  by  the  King's 
house  (but  neither  the  King  nor  Queen  were  there, 
but  only  the  Duke  and  Duchess  .  .  .  )  ;  but  to  my 
very  little  content,  they  not  acting  in  any  degree  like 
the  Duke's  people. 

March  9, 1668-69.  Towards  the  King's  playhouse, 
and  ...  to  see  "Claricilla,"  which  do  not  please  me 
almost  at  all,  though  there  are  some  good  things  in  it. 


Killigrew,  Thomas 
\  THE  PRINCESS,  OR  LOVE  AT  FIRST  SIGHT 

4-  ,  November  29, 1661.  To  the  Theatre,  but  it  was  so 
full  that  we  could  hardly  get  any  room,  so  he  went 
up  to  one  of  the  boxes,  and  I  into  the  ISd.  places,  and 
^fehere  saw  "Love  at  first  sight,"1  a  play  of  Mr.  Killi- 
grew's,  and  the  first  time  that  it  hath  been  acted  since 
before  the  troubles,  and  great  expectation  there  was, 
but  I  found  the  play  to  be  a  poor  thing,  and  so  I  per- 
ceive everybody  else  do. 

Killigrew,  Thomas  THE  PARSON'S  WEDDING 

October  4,  1664.  To-morrow  they  told  us  should 
be  acted,  or  the  day  after,  a  new  play,  called  "The 
Parson's  Dreame,"  acted  all  by  women.1 

October  11,  1664.    He  [Luellin]  tells  me  what  a 

1  The  Princess,  or  Love  at  First  Sight,  a  tragi-comedy  by 
Thomas  Killigrew,  acted  before  the  Restoration  in  1637-1638. 

1  Evidently  The  Parson's  Wedding  (1640),  referred  to  on 
October  11,  1664. 


CONTEMPORARY  RESTORATION  PLAYS     169 

bawdy  loose  play  this  "Parsons  Wedding,"2  is,  that  is 
acted  by  nothing  but  women  at  the  King's  house, 
and  I  am  glad  of  it. 


Lacy,  John    THE  OLD  TROOP,  OR  MONSIEUR  RAGGOU 

July  31,  1668.  To  the  King's  house,  to  see  the 
first  day  of  Lacy's  "Monsieur  Ragou,"1  now  new 
acted.  The  King  and  Court  all  there,  and  mighty 
merry — a  farce.  v 

August  1,  1668.  To  the  King's  house  again,  com- 
ing too  late  yesterday  to  hear  the  prologue,  and  do 
like  the  play  better  now  than  before;  and,  indeed, 
there  is  a  great  deal  of  true  wit  in  it,  more  than  in  the 
common  sort  of  plays. 


Newcastle,  Duke  of  THE  COUNTRY  CAPTAIN 

October  26,  1661.  My  wife  and  I  to  the  Theatre, 
and  there  saw  "The  Country  Captain,"1  the  first  time 

2  A  comedy  by  Thomas  Killigrew  acted  before  the  Restora- 
tion and  chiefly  distinguished  for  ribaldry  and  obscenity  of 
dialogue.  Lovewit,  in  James  Wright's  Historia  Histrionica, 
1699  (in  Dodsley's  Old  English  Plays,  Hazlitt  ed.,  XV,  412), 
remarks  that  at  this  time  it  was  "presented  by  all  women  as 
formerly  by  all  men";  and  Langbaine  (p.  313),  commenting 
upon  this  revival  of  the  play,  adds — "a  new  Prologue  and  Epi- 
logue being  spoken  by  Mrs.  Marshal  in  Man's  Cloaths." 

1  The  Old  Troop,  or  Monsieur  Raggou  (1664?),  the  best  play 
by  this  well-known  actor.  Lacy  probably  acted  the  title  part. 
For  his  alteration  of  The  Taming  of  the  Shrew,  see  p.  74. 

1  A  comedy  by  William  Cavendish,  Duke  of  Newcastle,  acted 


170  PEPYS  ON  THE  RESTORATION  STAGE 

it  hath  been  acted  these  twenty-five  years,  a  play  of 
my  Lord  Newcastle's,  but  so  silly  a  play  as  in  all  my 
life  I  never  saw,  and  the  first  that  ever  I  was  weary 
of  in  my  life. 

November  25,  1661.  To  the  Theatre,  and  there 
saw  "The  Country  Captain,"  a  dull  play. 

August  14,  1667.  To  the  King's  playhouse,  and 
there  saw  "The  Country  Captain,"  which  is  a  very 
ordinary  play.  Methinks  I  had  no  pleasure  therein 
at  alL_ 

May  14,  1668.  Then  into  the  [King's]  playhouse 
again,  and  there  saw  "The  Country  Captain,"  a  very 
dull  play,  that  did  give  us  no  content,  and  besides, 
little  company  there,  which  made  it  very  unpleasing. 


Newcastle,  Duke  of  (?)  THE  HEIRESS 

February  1,  1668-69.  To  the  King's  playhouse, 
thinking  to  have  seen  "The  Heyresse,"1  first  acted  on 
Saturday  last;  but  when  we  come  thither,  we  find  no 
play  there;  Kinaston,  that  did  act  a  part  therein,  in 

at  Blackfriars  about  1639;  Pepys's  damning  of  the  play  has 
been  deemed  unjust.  Among  modern  critics,  Professor  F.  E. 
Schelling  says  of  it:  "The  Country  Captain  is  far  from  a  con- 
temptible performance,  and  its  lively  scenes  of  contemporary 
English  country  life  must  have  proved  readily  actable  by  the 
King's  Company  at  Blackfriars"  (Elizabethan  Drama,  II,  184). 
1  "  'The  Heiress'  does  not  appear  in  the  list  of  the  Duke  of 
Newcastle's  works,  nor  has  any  play  of  that  name  and  date 
been  traced"  (Pepys's  Diary,  Wheatley  ed.,  VIII,  204).  It 
would  seem  from  the  reference  to  the  part  in  abuse  to  Sedley  to 
have  been  a  contemporary  play. 


.—>         CONTEMPORARY  RESTORATION  PLAYS     171 

abuse  to  Sir  Charles  Sedley,  being  last  night  exceed- 
ingly beaten.2 

February  23  1668-69.  To  the  King's  playhouse, 
where  "The  Heyresse,"  notwithstanding  Kinaston's 
being  beaten,  is  acted :  and  they  say  the  King  is  very 
angry  with  Sir  Charles  Sedley  for  his  being  beaten, 
but  he  do  deny  it.  But  his  part  is  done  by  Beeston, 
who  is  fain  to  read  it  out  of  a  book  all  the  while,  and 
thereby  spoils  the  part,  and  almost  the  play,  it  being 
one  of  the  best  parts  in  it ;  and  though  the  design  is, 
in  the  first  conception  of  it,  pretty  good,  yet  it  is  but 
an  indifferent  play,  wrote,  they  say,  by  my  Lord 
Newcastle.  But  it  was  pleasant  to  see  Beeston  come 
in  with  the  others,  supposing  it  to  be  dark,  and  yet  he 
is  forced  to  read  his  part  by  the  light  of  the  candles : 
and  this  I  observing  to  a  gentleman  that  sat  by  me, 
he  was  mightily  pleased  therewith,  and  spread  it  up 
and  down.  But  that,  that  pleased  me  most  in  the 
play  is,  the  first  song  that  Knepp  sings,  she  singing 
three  or  four ;  and,  indeed,  it  was  very  finely  sung,  so 
as  to  make  the  whole  house  clap  her. 


Newcastle,  Duke  of          THE  HUMOUROUS  LOVERS 

March  30,  1667.  Did  by  coach  go  to  see  the  silly 
play  of  my  Lady  Newcastle's,  called  "The  Humour- 
ous Lovers"  ;*  the  most  silly  thing  that  ever  come  upon 


this   story,  see  Doran's  Annals  of  the  English  Stage, 
Lowe  ed.,  I,  71-72. 

1  W.  C.  Hazlitt  describes  The  Humourous  Lovers  as  "A  com- 
edy by  the  Duke  of  Newcastle,  acted  at  the  Duke's  Theatre" 


172  PEPYS  ON  THE  RESTORATION  STAGE 

a  stage.    I  was  sick  to  see  it,  but  yet  would  not  but 
have  seen  it,  that  I  might  the  better  understand  her. 

April  11, 1667.  To  White  Hall,  thinking  there  to 
have  seen  the  Duchess  of  Newcastle.  .  .  .  [She]  was 
the  other  day  at  her  own  play,  "The  Humourous 
Lovers";  the  most  ridiculous  thing  that  ever  was 
wrote,  but  yet  she  and  her  Lord  mightily  pleased 
with  it;  and  she,  at  the  end,  made  her  respects  to  the 
players  from  her  box,  and  did  give  them  thanks. 


Orrery,  Earl  of  THE  BLACK  PRINCE 

October  19,  1667.  Full  of  my  desire  of  seeing  my 
Lord  Orrery's  new  play  this  afternoon  at  the  King's 
house,  "The  Black  Prince,"1  the  first  time  it  is  acted; 
where,  though  we  come  by  two  o'clock,  yet  there  was 
no  room  in  the  pit,  but  we  were  forced  to  go  into  one 
of  the  upper  boxes,  at  4s.  a  piece,  which  is  the  first 
time  I  ever  sat  in  a  box  in  my  life,  .  .  .  and  this 
pleasure  I  had,  that  from  this  place  the  scenes  do 
appear  very  fine  indeed,  and  much  better  than  in  the 
pit.  The  house  infinite  full,  and  the  King  and  Duke 
of  York  was  there.  By  and  by  the  play  begun,  and  in 
it  nothing  particular  but  a  very  fine  dance  for  variety 
of  figures,  but  a  little  too  long.  But,  as  to  the  con- 

(A  Manual  for  the  Collector  and  Amateur  of  Old  English  Plays, 
p.  111).  He  gives  the  date  of  publication  as  1677.  Langbaine, 
who  also  attributes  the  play  to  the  Duke,  not  the  Duchess, 
comments  (p.  387)  that  it  "equals  most  of  the  Comedies  of  this 
Age." 

1  A  tragedy  (1667)  with  a  happy  ending,  written  in  rhyme. 


CONTEMPORARY  RESTORATION  PLAYS     173 

^trivance,  and  all  that  was  witty  (which,  indeed,  was 
much,  and  very  witty),  was  almost  the  same  that  had 
been  in  his  two  former  plays  of  "Henry  the  5th"2 
and  "Mustapha,"3  and  the  same  points  and  turns  of 
wit  in  both,  and  in  this  very  same  play  often  re- 
peated, but  in  excellent  language,  and  were  so  excel- 
lent that  the  whole  house  was  mightily  pleased  with  it 
all  along  till  towards  the  end  he  comes  to  discover  the 
chief  of  the  plot  of  the  play  by  the  reading  of  a  long 
letter,4  which  was  so  long  and  some  things  (the  peo- 
ple being  set  already  to  think  too  long)  so  unneces- 
sary that  they  frequently  begun  to  laugh,  and  to  hiss 
twenty  times,  that,  had  it  not  been  for  the  King*s 
being  there,  they  had  certainly  hissed  it  off  the  stage. 
But  I  must  confess  that,  as  my  Lord  Barkeley  says 
behind  me,  the  having  of  that  long  letter  was  a  thing 
so  absurd  that  he  could  not  imagine  how  a  man  of 
his  parts  could  possibly  fall  into  it;  or,  if  he  did,  if 
he  had  but  let  any  friend  read  it,  the  friend  would 
have  told  him  of  it;  and,  I  must  confess,  it  is  one  of 
the  most  remarkable  instances  that  ever  I  did  or 
expect  to  meet  with  in  my  life  of  a  wise  man's  not 
being  wise  at  all  times,  and  in  all  things,  for 
nothing  could  be  more  ridiculous  than  this,  though 

2  The  History  of  Henry  the  Fifth  (1664). 

3  Mustapha,  the  Son  of  Solyman  the  Magnificent  (1665). 

4  Read  by  Hart  in  Act  V,  and  afterwards  omitted  as  will  be 
seen  from  Pepys's  entry  for  October  23.     According  to  Downes 
(Roscius  Anglicanus,  p.  14),  Hart  acted  the  part  of  Lord  Dela- 
ware; Mohun,  Edward  III;  Kynaston,  the  Black  Prince;  Winter- 
sell,  King  John  of  France;  Burt,  Count  Guesclin;  Mrs.  Marshall, 
Plantagenet;  Nell  Gwyn,  Alizia. 


174  PEPYS  ON  THE  RESTORATION  STAGE 

the  letter  of  itself  at  another  time  would  be 
thought  an  excellent  letter,  and  indeed  an  excellent 
Romance,  but  at  the  end  of  the  play,  when  every  body 
was  weary  of  sitting,  and  were  already  possessed  with 
the  effect  of  the  whole  letter,  to  trouble  them  with  a 
letter  a  quarter  of  an  hour  long,  was  a  most  absurd 
thing.  After  the  play  done,  and  nothing  pleasing 
them  from  the  time  of  the  letter  to  the  end  of  the 
play,  people  being  put  into  a  bad  humour  of  disliking 
(which  is  another  thing  worth  the  noting) ,  I  home  by 
coach,  and  could  not  forbear  laughing  almost  all  the 
way  home,  and  all  the  evening  to  my  going  to  bed,  at 
the  ridiculousness  of  the  letter. 

October  23,  1667.  To  the  King's  playhouse,  and 
there  saw  "The  Black  Prince,"  again:  which  is  might- 
ily bettered  by  that  long  letter  being  printed  and  so 
delivered  to  every  body  at  their  going  in,  and  some 
short  reference  made  to  it  in  heart  in  the  play,  which 
do  mighty  well;  but,  when  all  is  done,  I  think  it  the 
worst  play  of  my  Lord  Orrery's.  ...  The  play  done 
I  .  .  .to  my  chamber,  to  read  the  true  story,  in 
Speed,5  of  the  Black  Prince. 

April  1,  1668.  To  the  King's  house,  and  there  sat 
in  an  upper  box,  to  hide  myself,  and  saw  "The  Black 
Prince,"  a  very  good  play;  but  only  the  fancy,  most 
of  it,  the  same  as  in  the  rest  of  my  Lord  Orrery's 
plays;  but  the  dance  very  stately;  ...  I  did  fall 
asleep  the  former  part  of  the  play,  but  afterwards 
did  mind  it  and  did  like  it  very  well. 

5  John  Speed's  Historic  of  Great  Britaine,  book  IX,  chapter 
XII. 


CONTEMPORARY  RESTORATION  PLAYS     175 
Orrery,  Earl  of  THE  GENERAL 

September  28,  1664.  To  a  play,  and  so  we  saw, 
coming  late,  part  of  "The  Generall";1  my  Lord 
Orrery's  (Broghill)  second  play;  but  Lord!  to  see 
how  no  more  either  in  words,  sense,  or  design,  it  is 
to  his  "Henry  the  5th"  is  not  imaginable,  and  so 
poorly  acted,  though  in  finer  clothes,  is  strange. 

October  4,  1664-  After  dinner  to  a  play,  to  see 
"The  General";  which  is  so  dull  and  so  ill-acted,  that 
I  think  it  is  the  worst  I  ever  saw  or  heard  in  all  my 
days.  I  happened  to  sit  near  to  Sir  Charles  Sidly; 
who  I  find  a  very  witty  man,  and  he  did  at  every  line 
take  notice  of  the  dullness  of  the  poet  and  badness  of 
the  action,  and  that  most  pertinently;  which  I  was 
mightily  taken  with;  and  among  others  where  by 
Altemire's  command  Clarimont,  the  General,  is  com- 
manded to  rescue  his  Rivall,  whom  she  loved,  Lucidor, 
he,  after  a  great  deal  of  demurre,  broke  out,  "Well, 
I'll  save  my  Rivall  and  make  her  confess,  that  I 
deserve  while  he  do  but  possesse."  "Why,  what, 

1  A  play  entitled  The  General  appears  in  the  list  of  pieces  per- 
formed by  Killigrew's  company,  given  in  Malone's  Shakspeare, 
Vol.  I,  Part  II,  p.  268,  as  having  been  acted  about  this  time. 
In  Rufus  Chetwood's  British  Theatre  (Dublin,  1750)  "Altemira, 
a  Tragedy.  1685"  is  mentioned  among  the  anonymous  plays  (p. 
137).  This  was  doubtless  the  "Altemira,  Trag.  in  rhyme,  by 
Roger  Boyle,  Earl  of  Orrery,"  described  by  the  Biographia 
Dramatica  (1812  ed.,  II,  21-22)  as  having  been  "left  unfinished" 
and  later  drastically  revised  and  curtailed  by  the  grandson  of 
the  poet,  Charles  Boyle,  Earl  of  Orrery.  In  the  revision  of  the 
play  (1702)  Altemire  is  Altemira;  Clarimont,  the  General,  is 
Clorimon;  and  Lucidor,  his  rival,  Lycidor. 


176  PEPYS  ON  THE  RESTORATION  STAGE 

pox,"  says  Sir  Charles  Sydly,  "would  he  have  him 
have  more,  or  what  is  there  more  to  be  had  of  a  woman 
than  the  possessing  her?"2 

April  24, 1669.  After  dinner  to  the  King's  house, 
and  there  saw  "The  General"3  revived — a  good  play, 
that  pleases  me  well. 


Orrery,  Earl  of  GUZMAN 

April  16,  1669.  My  wife  being  gone  ...  to  see 
the  new  play  to-day  at  the  Duke  of  York's  house, 
"Guzman,"1  ...  I  thence  presently  to  the  Duke  of 
York's  playhouse,  and  there,  in  the  ISd.  seat,  did  get 
room  to  see  almost  three  acts  of  the  play,  but  it  seemed 
to  me  but  very  ordinary.  After  the  play  done,  I  into 
the  pit,  and  .  .  .  here  I  did  meet  with  Shadwell,2  the 
poet,  who,  to  my  great  wonder,  do  tell  me  that  my 

2  In  the  1702  version,  the  first  part  of  Act  III  comes  very 
close  to  this  description.     The  lines,  as  Pepys  remembered  them, 
on  which  Sedley  comments,  were  published  practically  unaltered. 
Clorimon  says: 

"I'll  save  my  Rival,  and  make  her  Confess 
'Tis  I  Deserve  what  he  does  but  Possess." 

3  Either  a  revival  of  Orrery's  tragedy,  or,  as  W.  C.  Hazlitt 
asserts,  a  tragi-comedy  with  the  same  title  by  James  Shirley, 
printed  from  a  MS.  in  1853.     (Cf.  A  Manual  for  the  Collector 
and  Amateur  of  Old  English  Plays,  p.  93.) 

1  A  comedy   (1669).     This  entry  is  of  particular  interest  as 
indicating  how  fleeting  was  the  popularity  of  the  heroic  drama 
of  the  Restoration.     According  to  Downes  (Roscius  Anglicanus, 
p.  28),  Guzman  "took  very  well." 

2  Thomas  Shadwell. 


CONTEMPORARY  RESTORATION  PLAYS     177 

Lord  of  [Orrery]  did  write  this  play,  trying  what 
he  could  do  in  comedy,  since  his  heroique  plays  could 
do  no  more  wonders.  This  do  trouble  me;  for  it  is 
a  mean  thing,  and  so  he  says,  as  hath  been  upon  the 
stage  a  great  while;  and  Harris,  who  hath  no  part 
in  it,  did  come  to  me,  and  told  me  in  discourse  that 
he  was  glad  of  it,  it  being  a  play  that  will  not  take. 


Orrery,  Earl  of 

THE  HISTORY  or  HENRY  THE  FIFTH 

August  13, 1664.  Mr.  Creed  dining  with  me  I  got 
him  to  give  my  wife  and  me  a  play  this  afternoon, 
lending  him  money  to  do  it,  which  is  a  fallacy  that  I 
have  found  now  once,  to  avoyde  my  vowe  with,  but 
never  to  be  more  practised  I  swear,  and  so  to  the  new 
play,  at  the  Duke's  house,  of  "Henry  the  Fifth";1  a 
most  noble  play,  writ  by  my  Lord  Orrery,  wherein 
Betterton,  Harris,  and  lanthe's2  parts  are  most  in- 
comparably wrote  and  done,  and  the  whole  play  the 
most  full  of  height  and  raptures  of  wit  and  sense,  that 
ever  I  heard ;  having  but  one  incongruity,  or  what  did 

*A  rhymed  heroic  drama  (1664),  "Splendidly  Cloath'd," 
according  to  Downes  (Roscius  Anglicanus,  pp.  27-28), — "The 
King  in  the  Duke  of  York's  Coronation  Suit:  Owen  Tudor,  in 
King  Charle's:  Duke  of  Burgundy,  in  the  Lord  of  Oxford's,  and 
the  rest  all  New.  It  was  Excellently  Performed,  and  Acted  10 
Days  Successively." 

2  Betterton  played  Owen  Tudor;  Harris,  King  Henry; 
"lanthe"  (Mrs.  Betterton),  Princess  Katherine;  and  Mrs.  Davis, 
Anne  of  Burgundy. 


178  PEPYS  ON  THE  RESTORATION  STAGE 

not  please  me  in  it,  that  King  Harry  promises  to 
plead  for  Tudor  to  their  Mistresse,  Princesse  Kath- 
erine  of  France,  more  than  when  it  comes  to  it  he 
seems  to  do;  and  Tudor  refused  by  her  with  some 
kind  of  indignity,  not  with  a  difficulty  and  honour 
that  it  ought  to  have  been  done  in  to  him. 

August  17,  1664-  Very  merry  discoursing  of  the 
late  play  of  Henry  the  5th,  which  they  conclude  the 
best  that  ever  was  made,  but  confess  with  me  that 
Tudor's  being  dismissed  in  the  manner  he  is  is  a  great 
blemish  to  the  play. 

December  28,  1666.  To  White  Hall,  and  got  my 
Lord  Bellasses  to  get  me  into  the  playhouse;  and 
there,  after  all  staying  above  an  hour  for  the  players, 
the  King  and  all  waiting,  which  was  absurd,  saw 
"Henry  the  Fifth"3  well  done  by  the  Duke's  people, 
and  in  most  excellent  habits,  all  new  vests,  being  put 
on  but  this  night.  But  I  sat  so  high  and  far  off,  that 
I  missed  most  of  the  words,  and  sat  with  a  wind  com- 
ing into  my  back  and  neck,  which  did  much  trouble 
me.  The  play  continued  till  twelve  at  night. 

February  13,  1666-67.  But  what  I  wondered  at, 
Dr.  Clerke  did  say  that  Sir  W.  Davenant  is  no  good 
judge  of  a  dramatick  poem,  finding  fault  with  his 
choice  of  Henry  the  5th  and  others  for  the  stage. 

July  6,  1668.  My  wife  and  company  to  the 
[Duke's]  house,  to  see  "Henry  the  Fifth."  .  .  . 
Thence  I  to  the  playhouse,  and  saw  a  piece  of  the 
play,  and  glad  to  see  Betterton. 

3  It  seems  probable  that  in  this  and  the  following  entries  Pepys 
is  again  referring  to  Orrery's  and  not  Shakespeare's  play. 


CONTEMPORARY  RESTORATION  PLAYS     179 

Orrery,  Earl  of 

MUSTAPHA,,  THE  SON  OF  SOLYMAN  THE 

MAGNIFICENT 

April  3,  1665.  To  a  play  at  the  Duke's,  of  my 
Lord  Orrery's,  called  "Mustapha,"1  which  being  not 
good,  made  Betterton's  part  and  lanthe's2  but  ordi- 
nary too,  so  that  we  were  not  contented  with  it  at 
all.  .  .  .  All  the  pleasure  of  the  play  was,  the  King 
and  my  Lady  Castlemayne  were  there;  and  pretty 
witty  Nell,  at  the  King's  house,  and  the  younger 
Marshall3  sat  next  us;  which  pleased  me  mightily. 

1  Mustapha,    the    Son    of   Solyman    the    Magnificent    (1665). 
Evelyn  saw  this  play  three  days  later  and  again  on  October  18, 
1666.     Under  the  latter  date  he  makes  the  following  interesting 
comment:   "This   night  was   acted  my  Lord   Broghill's   tragedy 
called  'Mustapha'  before  their  Majesties  at  Court,  at  which  I  was 
present,   very   seldom   going   to   the   publiq   theaters    for   many  '" 
reasons,   now    as    they   were    abused   to    an    atheistical    liberty, 
fowle  and  undecent  women  now  (and  never  till  now)  permitted 
to  appear  and  act,  who  inflaming  severall  young  noblemen  and 
gallants,  became  their  misses,  and  to  some  their  wives;  witness 
ye   Earl  of  Oxford,   Sir   R.   Howard,   P.    Rupert,  the   Earl   of 
Dorset,  and  another  greater  person  than  any  of  them,  who  fell 
into  their  snares,  to  ye  reproch  of  their  noble  families,  and  ruine 
of  both  body  and  soule.     I  was  invited  by  my  Lo.  Chamberlaine 
to  see  this  tragedy,  exceedingly  well  written,  tho'  in  my  mind  I 
did  not  approve  of  any  such  pastime  in  a  time  of  such  judgments 
and  calamities"   (Diary,  Wheatley  ed.,  II,  pp.  210-211).     The 
"judgments  and  calamities"  were  the  fire,  which  was  just  over, 
and  the  plague  not  yet  abated. 

2  For  the  complete  cast,  see  Roscius  Anglicanus,  p.  26.    Better- 
ton    played    Solyman;    Harris,    Mustapha;    W.    Smith,   Zanger; 
Sandf ord,  Rustan ;  Mrs.  Davenport — and  later  Mrs.  Betterton — 
Roxalana;  and  Mrs.  Davis,  Queen  of  Hungaria. 

3  Nell  Gwyn  and  Rebecca  Marshall. 


180  PEPYS  ON  THE  RESTORATION  STAGE 

January  5,  1666-67.  To  the  Duke's  house,  and 
there  saw  "Mustapha"  a  most  excellent  play  for 
words  and  design  as  any  ever  I  did  see.  I  had  seen 
it  before  but  forgot  it,  so  it  was  wholly  new  to  me, 
which  is  the  pleasure  of  my  not  committing  these 
things  to  my  memory. 

September  4,  1667.  To  the  Duke  of  York's  play 
house,  and  there  saw  "Mustapha,"  which,  the  more  I 
see  the  more  I  like;  and  is  a  most  admirable  poem, 
and  bravely  acted;  only  both  Betterton  and  Harris 
could  not  contain  from  laughing  in  the  midst  of  a 
most  serious  part,  from  the  ridiculous  mistake  of  one 
o'  3ie  men  upon  the  stage;  which  I  did  not  like. 

February  11,  1667-68.  Sent  my  wife  and  Deb.  to 
see  "Mustapha"  acted,  .  .  .  and  so  to  the  Duke  of 
York's  playhouse,  and  there  saw  the  last  act  for  noth- 
ing, where  I  never  saw  such  good  acting  of  any  crea- 
ture as  Smith's  part  of  Zanger ;  and  I  do  also,  though 

it  [Solyman]  was  excellently  acted  by ,  do  yet 

want  Betterton  mightily. 

June  15, 1668.  My  wife  pleased  with  all,  this  even- 
ing reading  of  "Mustapha"  to  me  till  supper. 

June  16,  1668.  To  Reading,  and  then  heard  my 
wife  read  more  of  "Mustapha." 


Orrery,  Earl  of  TRYPHON 

December  8,  1668.    My  wife  tells  me  of  my  Lord 
Orrery's    new   play    "Tryphon,"1    at   the   Duke    of 

*A  tragedy  (1668).     Evidently  the  Earl  of  Orrery  felt  the 


CONTEMPORARY  RESTORATION  PLAYS     181 

York's  house,  which,  however,  I  would  see  .  .  .  and 
therefore  .  .  .  went  thither,  where,  with  much  ado,  at 
half -past  one,  we  got  into  a  blind  hole  in  the  ISd. 
place,  above  stairs,  where  we  could  not  hear  well,  but 
the  house  infinite  full,  but  the  prologue  most  silly, 
and  the  play,  though  admirable,  yet  no  pleasure 
almost  in  it,  because  just  the  very  same  design,  and 
words,  and  sense,  and  plot,  as  every  one  of  his  plays 
have,  any  one  of  which  alone  would  be  held  admir- 
able, whereas  so  many  of  the  same  design  and  fancy 
do  but  dull  one  another;  and  this,  I  perceive,  is  the 
sense  of  every  body  else,  as  well  as  myself,  who  there- 
fore showed  but  little  pleasure  in  it. 

December  9y  1668.  To  the  Duke  of  York's  house 
where  mighty  full  again,  but  we  come  time  enough  to 
have  a  good  place  in  the  pit,  and  did  hear  this  new 
play  again,  where,  though  I  better  understood  it  than 
before,  yet  my  sense  of  it  and  pleasure  was  just  the 
same  as  yesterday,  and  no  more,  nor  any  body  else's 
about  us. 


Porter,  Thomas   (?)  THE  GERMAN  PRINCESS 

April  15,  1664.  To  the  Duke's  house,  and  there 
saw  "The  German  Princess"1  acted,  by  the  woman 

force  of  such  criticism.  It  is  interesting  to  note  that  in  his  next 
dramatic  venture,  the  comedy  of  Guzman  (1669),  he  broke  away 
from  the  rhymed  heroic  tragedy. 

1  Genest  states  (I,  pp.  51-52)  that  the  play  referred  to  here 
was  A  Witty  Combat,  or  the  Female  Victor,  a  T rage-Comedy,  "as 
it  was  acted  by  persons  of  quality  in  Whitsun-week  with  great 


182  PEPYS  ON  THE  RESTORATION  STAGE 

herself;  but  never  was  anything  so  well  done  in 
earnest,  worse  performed  in  jest  upon  the  stage;  and 
indeed  the  whole  play,  abating  the  drollery  of  him 
that  acts  her  husband,  is  very  simple,  unless  here  and 
there  a  witty  sprinkle  or  two. 


Porter,  Thomas  THE  VILLAIN 

October  20  f  1662.  Among  other  discourse  young 
Killigrew  did  so  commend  "The  Villaine,"1  a  new 
play  made  by  Tom  Porter,  and  acted  only  on  Satur- 
day at  the  Duke's  house,  as  if  there  never  had  been 
any  such  play  come  upon  the  stage.  The  same  yester- 
day was  told  me  by  Captain  Ferrers ;  and  this  morn- 
ing afterwards  by  Dr.  Clerke,  who  saw  it.  ...  To 
the  Duke's  house,  and  there  was  the  house  full  of 
company:  but  whether  it  was  in  over-expecting  or 
what,  I  know  not,  but  I  was  never  less  pleased  with 

applause  .  .  .  written  by  T.  P.  [Thomas  Porter  ?]  Gent." 
(1663).  It  was  obviously  based  upon  the  adventures  of  a  notori- 
ous impostor,  Mary  Moders,  who  masqueraded  about  this  time 
under  the  name  of  "the  German  princess."  After  D'Avenant  had 
exploited  her  on  the  stage,  she  returned  to  her  former  occupa- 
tions, and  in  1673  was  executed  for  theft.  Pepys  refers  to  her 
again  on  May  29  and  June  7,  1663.  On  the  latter  occasion,  he 
defends  "her  wit  and  spirit"  against  Lady  Batten.  For  an 
account  of  the  publications  based  upon  her  career,  see  Ernest 
Bernbaum,  The  Mary  Carleton  Narratives,  1663-1678. 

1 A  tragedy  by  Thomas  Porter,  published  in  the  following 
year. 


CONTEMPORARY  RESTORATION  PLAYS     183 

a  play  in  my  life.  Though  there  was  good  singing 
and  dancing,  yet  no  fancy  in  the  play,  but  something 
that  made  it  less  contenting  was  my  conscience  that  I 
ought  not  to  have  gone  by  my  vow,  and,  besides,  my 
business  commanded  me  elsewhere. 

October  27,  1662.  Here  [at  Whitehall]  we  staid 
some  time,  thinking  to  stay  out  the  play  before  the 
King  to-night,  but  it  being  "The  Villaine,"  ...  I 
had  no  mind. 

December  26, 1662.  To  the  Duke's  house  and  saw 
"The  Villaine,"  which  I  ought  not  to  do  without  my 
wife,  but  that  my  time  is  now  out  that  I  did  under- 
take it  for.  But,  Lord!  to  consider  how  my  natural 
desire  is  to  pleasure,  which  God  be  praised  that  he 
has  given  me  the  power  by  my  late  oaths  to  curb  so 
well  as  I  have  done,  and  will  do  again  after  two  or 
three  plays  more.  Here  I  was  better  pleased  with  the 
play  than  I  was  at  first,  understanding  the  design 
better  than  I  did. 

January  1,  1662-63.  To  the  Duke's  House,  where 
we  saw  "The  Villane"  again;  and  the  more  I  see  it, 
the  more  I  am  offended  at  my  first  undervaluing  the 
play,  it  being  very  good  and  pleasant,  and  yet  a  true 
and  allowable  tragedy.  The  house  was  full  of  citi- 
zens, and  so  the  less  pleasant,  but  that  I  was  willing  to 
make  an  end  of  my  gaddings,  and  to  set  to  my  busi- 
ness for  all  the  year  again  to-morrow. 

September  7,  1665.  Thence  to  Brainford,  reading 
"The  Villaine,"  a  pretty  good  play,  all  the  way. 

October  24,  1667.  To  the  Duke  of  York's  play- 
house; but  there  Betterton  not  being  yet  well,  we 


184  PEPYS  ON  THE  RESTORATION  STAGE 

would  not  stay,  though  since  I  hear  that  Smith  do  act 
his  part2  in  "The  Villaine,"  which  was  then  acted,  as 
well  or  better  than  he,  which  I  do  not  believe. 


Rhodes,  Richard  FLORA'S  VAGARIES 

August  8,  1664^  So  my  wife  and  I  abroad  to  the 
King's  playhouse,  she  giving  me  her  time  of  the  last 
month,  she  having  not  seen  any  then;  so  my  vowe 
is  not  broke  at  all.  .  .  .  Here  we  saw  "Flora's 
Figarys."1  I  never  saw  it  before,  and  by  the  most 
ingenuous  performance  of  the  young  jade  Flora,  it 
seemed  as  pretty  a  pleasant  play  as  ever  I  saw  in  my 
life. 

October  5,  1667.  Here2  I  read  the  questions  to 
Knepp,  while  she  answered  me,  through  all  her  part 
of  Flora's  Figary's3  which  was  acted  to-day.  .  .  .  By 

2  Better-ton's  part  was  Monsieur  Brisac.  In  the  original  cast 
were  also  Sandford  (Maligni,  the  Villain)  ;  Harris  (Beaupres)  ; 
Young  (Bontefeu),  Mrs.  Betterton,  "late  Saunderson,"  (Bel- 
mont).  "This  Play,"  says  Downes  (Roscius  Anglicanus,  p.  23), 
"by  its  being  well  perform'd,  had  Success  Extremely  beyond  the 
Company's  Expectation.  ...  It  Succeeded  10  Days  with  a  full 
House,  to  the  last." 

1A  comedy  (1663)  by  Richard  Rhodes,  previously  acted, 
according  to  the  list  of  plays  performed  by  Killigrew's  company, 
given  in  Malone's  Shakspeare,  Vol.  I,  Part  II,  p.  268,  on  Novem- 
ber 23,  1663.  The  part  of  Flora  was  later  played  by  Nell  Gwyn. 

2  In  the  greenroom  at  the  King's  theatre,  which  like  the  "tiring- 
room"  of  the  Restoration  playhouse  was  accessible  to  the  friends 
of  the  players. 

3  Mrs.  Knepp  played  the  part  of  Otrante.    The  other  principal 


CONTEMPORARY  RESTORATION  PLAYS     185 

and  by  into  the  pit,  and  there  saw  the  play,  which  is 
pretty  good,  but  my  belly  was  full  of  what  I  had 
seen  in  the  house. 

February  18,  1667-68.  To  the  King's  house,  and 
there,  in  one  of  the  upper  boxes  saw  "Flora's 
Vagarys,"  which  is  a  very  silly  play;  and  the  more, 
I  being  out  of  humour,  being  at  a  play  without  my 
wife. 


Sedley,  Sir  Charles 

THE  MULBERRY  GARDEN  (THE  WANDERING 

LADIES  (?)) 

January  11,  1667-68.  She  [Knepp]  told  me  also 
of  a  play  shortly  coming  upon  the  stage,  of  Sir 
Charles  Sidly's,  which,  she  thinks,  will  be  called  "The 
Wandering  Ladys,"1  a  comedy  that,  she  thinks,  will 
be  most  pleasant. 

May  7, 1668.  Thither  comes  Bannister  with  a  song 
of  her's  [Knepp's],  that  he  hath  set  in  Sir  Charles 
Sidley's  play  for  her.2 

May  18,  1668.  To  the  King's  playhouse,  where 
the  doors  were  not  then  open,3  but  presently  they  did 
open;  and  we  in,  and  find  many  people  already  come 

actors    were    Beeston    as    Ludovico;    Mohun,    Alberto;    Burt, 
Francisco;  Cartwright,  Grimani.     (Cf.  Genest,  I,  70.) 

1  Probably  The  Mulberry  Garden.     No  play  of  this  name  is 
known. 

2  The   song  beginning,    "Ah,    Cloris,   that    I    now   could   sit," 
Bannister's  music  to  which  has  not  been  discovered. 

3  This  was  at  twelve  o'clock,  when  the  doors  of  the  theatre 
were  usually  opened. 


186  PEPYS  ON  THE  RESTORATION  STAGE 

in,  by  private  ways,  into  the  pit,  it  being  the  first  day 
of  Sir  Charles  Sidly's  new  play,  so  long  expected, 
"The  Mullberry  Guarden,"4  of  whom,  being  so  re- 
puted a  wit,  all  the  world  do  expect  great  matters.  I 
having  sat  there  a  while  .  .  .  did  slip  out,  getting  a 
boy  to  keep  my  place ;  and  to  the  Rose  Tavern.  .  .  . 
And  so  to  the  play  again,  where  the  King  and  Queen, 
by  and  by,  come,  and  all  the  Court;  and  the  house 
infinitely  full.  But  the  play,  when  it  come,  though 
there  was,  here  and  there,  a  pretty  saying,  and  that 
not  very  many  neither,  yet  the  whole  of  the  play  had 
nothing  extraordinary  in  it,  at  all,  neither  of  language 
nor  design,  insomuch  that  the  King  I  did  not  see 
laugh,  nor  pleased  the  whole  play  from  the  beginning 
to  the  end,  nor  the  company ;  insomuch  that  I  have  not 
been  less  pleased  at  a  new  play  in  my  life,  I  think. 
And  which  made  it  the  worse  was,  that  there  never 
was  worse  musick  played — that  is,  worse  things  com- 
posed, which  made  me  and  Captain  Rolt,  who  hap- 
pened to  sit  near  me,  mad.  So  away  thence,  very 
little  satisfied  with  the  play,  but  pleased  with  my 
company. 

May  20, 1668.  Thence  walked  to  the  King's  play- 
house, and  saw  "The  Mulberry- Gar  den"  again,  and 
cannot  be  reconciled  to  it,  but  only  to  find  here  and 
there  an  independent  sentence  of  wit,  and  that  is  all. 

June  29,  1668.  With  my  wife  to  the  King's  play- 
house— "The  Mulberry  Garden,"  which  she  had  not 
seen. 

4  A  comedy  (1668)  which  met  with  great  success  in  spite  of 
Pepys's  disapproval. 


CONTEMPORARY  RESTORATION  PLAYS     187 

St.  Serfe,  Sir  Thomas 

TARUGO'S  WILES,  on  THE  COFFEE  HOUSE 

October  5,  1667.  To  the  Duke  of  York's  play- 
house, but  the  house  so  full,  it  being  a  new  play,  "The 
Coffee  House,"1  that  we  could  not  get  in,  so  to  the 
King's  house.  .  .  .  But  to  see  how  Nell  cursed,  for 
having  so  few  people  in  the  pit,  was  pretty;  the  other 
house  carrying  away  all  the  people  at  the  new  play. 

October  15,  1667.  To  the  Duke  of  York's  house, 
where,  after  long  stay,  the  King  and  Duke  of  York 
come,  and  there  saw  "The  Coffee-house,"  the  most 
ridiculous,  insipid  play  that  ever  I  saw  in  my  life,  and 
glad  we  were  that  Betterton  had  no  part  in  it. 


Shadwell,  Thomas  THE  ROYAL  SHEPHERDESS 

February  25,  1668-69.  To  the  Duke  of  York's 
house,  and  there  before  one,  but  the  house  infinite  full, 
where,  by  and  by,  the  King  and  Court  come,  it  being 
a  new  play,  or  an  old  one  new  vamped  by  Shadwell, 
called  "The  Royall  Shepherdesse,"1  but  the  silliest 

1  Tarugo's  Wiles,  or  The  Coffee  House  (1667),  a  comedy  based 
upon  Moreto's  No  puede  ser,  which  "Expir'd  the  third  Day" 
(Roscius  Anglicanus,  p.  31).  John  Dennis  {Original  Letters, 
Familiar,  Moral,  Critical,  I,  51)  remarks  of  the  Spanish  play 
that  it  was  "translated  and  acted  and  damned,  under  the  title  of 
Tarugo's  Wiles,  or  the  Coffee  House." 

*A  pastoral  tragi-comedy  (1669)  based  upon  John  Foun- 
tain's The  Rewards  of  Virtue,  which  "liv'd  Six  days"  according 
to  Downes  (Roscius  Anglicanus,  p.  31). 


188  PEPYS  ON  THE  RESTORATION  STAGE 

for  words  and  design,  and  everything,  that  ever  I  saw 
in  my  whole  life,  there  being  nothing  in  the  world 
pleasing  in  it,  but  a  good  martial  dance  of  pikemen, 
where  Harris  and  another  do  handle  their  pikes  in  a 
dance  to  admiration;  but  never  less  satisfied  with  a 
play  in  my  life. 


Shadwell,  Thomas 

THE  SULLEN  LOVERS,  OR  THE  IMPERTINENTS 

May  2,  1668.  To  the  Duke  of  York's  playhouse, 
at  a  little  past  twelve,  to  get  a  good  place  in  the  pit, 
against  the  new  play,  and  there  setting  a  poor  man 
to  keep  my  place,  I  out,  and  spent  an  hour  at  Mar- 
tin's, my  bookseller's,  and  so  back  again,  where  I  find 
the  house  quite  full.  But  I  had  my  place,  and  by  and 
by  the  King  comes  and  the  Duke  of  York;  and  then 
the  play  begins,  called  "The  Sullen  Lovers;  or,  The 
Impertinents,"1  having  many  good  humours  in  it,  but 
the  play  tedious,  and  no  design  at  all  in  it.  But  a 
little  boy,  for  a  farce,  do  dance  Polichinelli,  the  best 
that  ever  anything  was  done  in  this  world,  by  all 
men's  report:  most  pleased  with  that,  beyond  any- 
thing in  the  world,  and  much  beyond  all  the  play. 

May  4,  1668.  To  the  Duke  of  York's  house,  and 
there  saw  "The  Impertinents"  again,  and  with  less 

1  Shadwell's  first  comedy  (1668),  based  upon  Moliere's  Les 
Facheux.  Smith  acted  the  part  of  Stanford;  Harris,  Sir  Positive 
At-all;  Nokes,  Ninny;  and  Mrs.  Shadwell,  Emilia.  "This  Play/' 
Downes  records  (Roscius  Anglicanus,  p.  29),  "had  wonderful 
Success,  being  Acted  12  Days  together." 


CONTEMPORARY  RESTORATION  PLAYS     189 

pleasure  than  before,  it  being  but  a  very  contemptible 
play,  though  there  are  many  little  witty  expressions 
in  it ;  and  the  pit  did  generally  say  that  of  it. 

May  5,  1668.  To  the  Duke  of  York's  playhouse; 
and  there  coming  late,  he  and  I  up  to  the  balcony- 
box,  where  we  find  my  Lady  Castlemayne  and  sev- 
eral great  ladies;  and  there  we  sat  with  them,  and  I 
saw  "The  Impertinents"  once  more,  now  three  times, 
and  the  three  only  days  it  hath  been  acted.  And  to 
see  the  folly  how  the  house  do  this  day  cry  up  the 
play  more  than  yesterday!  and  I  for  that  reason  like 
it,  I  find,  the  better,  too;  by  Sir  Positive  At-all,  I 
understand  is  meant  Sir  Robert  Howard. 

May  6, 1668.  Among  other  things  understand  that 
my  Lord  St.  John  is  meant  by  Mr.  Woodcocke  in 
"The  Impertinents." 

May  8,  1668.  But  Lord!  to  see  how  this  play  of 
Sir  Positive  At- All,  in  abuse  of  Sir  Robert  Howard, 
do  take,  all  the  Duke's  and  everybody's  talk  being 
of  that,  and  telling  more  stories  of  him,  of  the  like 
nature,  that  it  is  now  the  town  and  country  talk,  and, 
they  say,  is  most  exactly  true.  The  Duke  of  York 
himself  said  that  of  his  playing  at  trap-ball  is  true, 
and  told  several  other  stories  of  him. 

June  24, 1668.  To  the  Duke  of  York's  playhouse, 
and  there  saw  "The  Impertinents,"  a  pretty  good 
play. 

August  29,  1668.  Thence  carried  Harris  to  his 
playhouse,  where,  though  four  o'clock,  so  few  people 
there  at  "The  Impertinents,"  as  I  went  out,  and  do 
believe  they  did  not  act  though  there  was  Lord 
Arlington  and  his  company  there. 


190  PEPYS  ON  THE  RESTORATION  STAGE 

April  14,  1669.  To  the  Duke  of  York's  play- 
house, and  there  saw  "The  Impertinents,"  a  play 
which  pleases  me  still. 


Southland,  Thomas  (?)  LOVE  A  LA  MODE 

July  19, 1663.  Then  I  fell  to  read  over  a  silly  play 
writ  by  a  person  of  honour  (which  is,  I  find,  as  much 
as  to  say  a  coxcomb) ,  called  "Love  a  la  Mode."1 


Stapylton,  Sir  Robert  THE  SLIGHTED  MAID 

February  23,  1662-63.  Walked  out  to  see  what 
play  was  acted  to-day,  and  we  find  it  "The  Slighted 
Mayde."1  But,  Lord!  to  see  that  though  I  did  know 
myself  to  be  out  of  danger,  yet  I  durst  not  go 
through  the  street,  but  round  by  the  garden  into 
Tower  Street.  By  and  by  took  coach,  and  to  the 
Duke's  house,  where  we  saw  it  well  acted,  though  the 
play  hath  little  good  in  it,  being  most  pleased  to  see 
the  little  girl  dance  in  boy's  apparel,  she  having  very 
fine  legs,  only  bends  in  the  hams,  as  I  perceive  all 
women  do. 

May  29,  1663.  To  the  Roy  all  Theatre,  but  they 
not  acting  to-day,  then  to  the  Duke's  house,  and  there 
saw  "The  Slighted  Mayde,"  wherein  Gosnell  acted 

1  Love  a  la  Mode,  a  comedy  by  "T.  S." — supposedly  Thomas 
Southland — was  printed  in  1663. 

1  The  Slighted  Maid  (1663),  a  comedy  by  Sir  Robert  Stapyl- 
ton. 


CONTEMPORARY  RESTORATION  PLAYS     191 

Pyramena,2  a  great  part,  and  did  it  very  well,  and  I 
believe  will  do  it  better  and  better,  and  prove  a  good 
actor.  The  play  is  not  very  excellent,  but  is  well 
acted,  and  in  general  the  actors,  in  all  particulars,  are 
better  than  at  the  other  house. 

July  28,  1668.  To  the  Duke  of  York's  playhouse, 
and  there  saw  "The  Slighted  Maid,"  but  a  mean  play; 
and  thence  home,  there  being  little  pleasure  now  in  a 
play,  the  company  being  but  little.  Here  we  saw 
Gosnell,  who  is  become  very  homely,  and  sings 
meanly  I  think,  to  what  I  thought  she  did. 


Tatham,  John 

THE  RUMP,  OR  THE  MIRROUR  or  THE  LATE 

TIMES 

November  10,  1660.  After  reading  of  ...  the 
comedy  of  the  Rump,1  which  is  also  very  silly,  I  went 
to  bed. 


Taylor,  Captain  Silas 

THE  SERENADE,  OR  DISAPPOINTMENT 

May  7 ' ,  1669.  So  home,  and  there  met  with  a  letter 
from  Captain  Silas  Taylor,  and,  with  it,  his  written 

2  According  to  Genest  (I,  46),  Mrs.  Betterton  had  taken  the 
part  of  Pyramena  on  May  28.  Betterton  was  Iberio;  Harris, 
Salerno;  Smith,  Lugo;  Young,  Corbulo;  Sandford,  Vindex. 

1  The  Rump,  or  the  Mirrour  of  the  Late  Times,  a  satire  of  the 
Cromwellian  regime,  was  privately  produced  in  1660  at  Dorset 
Court,  and  published  later  in  the  same  year. 


192  PEPYS  ON  THE  RESTORATION  STAGE 

copy  of  a  play  that  he  hath  wrote  and  intends  to  have 
acted.  It  is  called  "The  Serenade  or  Disappoint- 
ment,"1 which  I  will  read,  not  believing  he  can  make 
any  good  of  that  kind.  He  did  once  offer  to  show 
Harris  it,  but  Harris  told  him  he  would  judge  by  one 
Act,  whether  it  were  good  or  no,  which  is  indeed  a 
foolish  saying.  .  .  .  This  made  Taylor  say  he  would 
not  shew  it  him,  but  is  angry,  and  hath  carried  it  to 
the  other  house,  and  he  thinks  it  will  be  acted  there, 
though  he  tells  me  they  are  not  agreed  upon  it. 


Tuke,  Sir  Samuel 

THE  ADVENTURES  OF  FIVE  HOURS 

January  8,  1662-63.  There  being  the  famous  new 
play  acted  the  first  time  to-day,  which  is  called  "The 
Adventures  of  Five  Hours,"1  at  the  Duke's  house, 
being,  they  say,  made  or  translated  by  Colonel  Tuke, 
I  did  long  to  see  it,  ...  and  so  we  went;  and  though 
early,  were  forced  to  sit  almost  out  of  sight  at  one 
end  of  the  lower  forms,  so  full  was  the  house.  And 

1  This  play  does  not  seem  to  be  otherwise  known.  The  author 
(? — 1688),  who  had  been  made  keeper  of  the  King's  stores  at 
Harwich  in  1665,  was  a  well-known  antiquary  and  something  of 
a  musician. 

1  An  adaptation  from  a  Spanish  comedy  of  intrigue,  Los 
Empenos  de  Seis  Horas,  ascribed  to  Antonio  Coello.  Evelyn 
had  already  seen  it.  His  entry  for  December  23,  1662,  reads: 
"I  went  with  Sr  George  Tuke  to  hear  the  comedians  con  and 
repeate  his  new  comedy,  'The  Adventures  of  5  Hours,'  a  play 
whose  plot  was  taken  out  of  the  famous  Spanish  poet  Calderon" 


CONTEMPORARY  RESTORATION  PLAYS     193 

the  play,  in  one  word,  is  the  best,  for  the  variety  and 
the  most  excellent  continuance  of  the  plot  to  the  very 
end,  that  ever  I  saw,  or  think  ever  shall,  and  all  possi- 
ble, not  only  to  be  done  in  the  time,  but  in  most  other 
respects  very  admittable,  and  without  one  word  of 
ribaldry;  and  the  house,  by  its  frequent  plaudits,  did 
show  their  sufficient  approbation. 

January  17,  1662-63.  To  the  Duke's  playhouse, 
where  we  did  see  "The  Five  Hours"  entertainment 
again,  which  indeed  is  a  very  fine  play,  though 
through  my  being  out  of  order,  it  did  not  seem  so 
good  as  at  first,  but  I  could  discern  it  was  not  any 
fault  in  the  play. 

June  1,  1663.  Begun  again  to  rise  betimes  by  4 
o'clock,  and  make  an  end  of  "The  Adventures  of  Five 
Houres,"  and  it  is  a  most  excellent  play. 

August  15,  1666.  So  down  the  river,  reading 
"The  Adventures  of  Five  Houres,"  which  the  more  I 
read  the  more  I  admire. 

August  17 ,  1666.     I  walking  alone  from  Green- 

(Diary,  Wheatley  ed.,  II,  156).  Evelyn  saw  the  play  again  on 
the  day  on  which  Pepys  first  saw  it.  It  is  interesting  to  compare 
his  record  of  the  performance  with  the  above:  "I  went  to  see  my 
kinsman  Sir  Geo.  Tuke's  comedy  acted  at  ye  Duke's  Theatre, 
which  took  so  universally,  that  it  was  acted  for  some  weekes 
every  day,  and  'twas  believ'd  it  would  be  worth  to  the  comedians 
4  or  <£500.  The  plot  was  incomparable  but  the  language  was 
stiffe  and  formal"  (Ibid.,  II,  157).  Downes,  who  ascribes  the 
play  to  the  Earl  of  Bristol  and  Sir  Samuel  Tuke,  adds:  "It  took 
Successively  13  Days  together";  "Mr.  Betterton,  Acting  Don 
Henriq;  Mr.  Harris,  Antonio;  Mr.  Young,  Octavio;  .  .  .  Mrs. 
Davenport,  Camilla;  Mrs.  Betterton,  Portia"  (Roscius  Angli- 
canus,  p.  22). 


194  PEPYS  ON  THE  RESTORATION  STAGE 

wich  thither,  making  an  end  of  the  "Adventures  of 
Five  Hours,"  which  when  all  is  done  is  the  best  play, 
that  ever  I  read  in  my  life. 

August  20,  1666.  Reading  "Othello,  Moore  of 
Venice,"  which  I  ever  heretofore  esteemed  a  mighty 
good  play,  but  having  so  lately  read  "The  Adven- 
tures of  Five  Houres,"  it  seems  a  mean  thing. 

January  27,  1668-69.  To  the  Duke  of  York's 
playhouse,  and  there  saw  "The  Five  Hours'  Adven- 
ture," which  hath  not  been  acted  a  good  while  before, 
but  once,  and  is  a  most  excellent  play,  I  must  confess. 

February  15, 1668-69.  To  White  Hall;  and  there, 
by  means  of  Mr.  Cooling,  did  get  into  the  play,  the 
only  one  we  have  seen  this  winter:  it  was  "The  Five 
Hours'  Adventure":  but  I  sat  so  far  I  could  not 
hear  well,  nor  was  there  any  pretty  woman  that  I  did 
see,  but  my  wife,  who  sat  in  Lady  Fox's  pew,  with 
her.  The  house  very  full;  and  late  before  done,  so 
that  it  was  past  eleven  before  we  got  home.  But  we 
were  well  pleased  with  seeing  it. 


CHAPTER  V 
FOREIGN   PLAYS   AND  TRANSLATIONS 


CHAPTER  V 
FOREIGN  PLAYS  AND  TRANSLATIONS 

Comenius,  Johann  Amos  SCHOLA  LUDUS 

June  25,  1666.    All  this  day  on  the  water  enter- 
tained myself  with  the  play1  of  Commenius. 


Corneille,  Pierre  THE  CID 

December  1,  1662.  To  the  Cockpitt,  with  much 
crowding  and  waiting,  where  I  saw  "The  Valiant 
Cidd,"1  acted,  a  play  I  have  read  with  great  delight, 
but  is  a  most  dull  thing  acted,  which  I  never  under- 
stood before,  there  being  no  pleasure  in  it,  though 
done  by  Betterton  and  by  lanthe,  and  another  fine 

1  Schola  Ludus  sen  Encyclopaedia  Viva  (hoc  est)  Januce  Lin- 
guarum  Praxis  Scenica  (1655),  a. school  drama  in  5  acts  and  21 
scenes,  by  Johann  Amos  Comenius,  or  Komensky  (1592-1671), 
the  noted  Moravian  educator  and  theologian.  The  Schola  Ludus 
was  written  for  the  instruction  of  the  boys  of  the  author's  school 
at  Patak,  chiefly  in  natural  history;  among  its  52  characters  are 
a  chemist,  a  geographer,  and  personifications  of  the  elements. 

1 A  translation  of  Le  Cid  (1637)  presumably  by  Joseph 
Rutter.  D.  F.  Canfield  (Corneille  and  Racine  in  England, 
p.  13)  cites  Pepys's  statement  as  evidence  that  "Rutter's  trans- 
lation held  the  stage  as  late  as  1662." 


198  PEPYS  ON  THE  RESTORATION  STAGE 

wench  that  is  come  in  the  room  of  Roxalana;2  nor  did 
the  King  or  Queen  once  smile  all  the  whole  play,  nor 
any  of  the  company  seem  to  take  any  pleasure  but 
what  was  in  the  greatness  and  the  gallantry  of  the 
company. 


Corneille,  Pierre  HERACLIUS.,  EMPEROR  or  THE  EAST 

March    8,    1663-64-     "Heraclius"    being    acted,1   | 
(which  my  wife  and  I  have  a  mighty  mind  to  see).    I 
...  The  play  hath  one  very  good  passage  well  man- 
aged in  it,  about  two  persons  pretending,  and  yet 
denying  themselves,  to  be  son  to  the  tyrant  Phocas, 

2<Jhat  is,  by  Betterton  and  his  wife  ("lanthe")  and  an  actress 
who  succeeded  Elizabeth  Davenport  ("Roxalana"). 

1  A  translation  of  Corneille's  Heraclius ,  brought  out  at  the 
Duke's  theatre.  It  has  been  attributed  to  Lodovick  Carl  ell, 
author  of  the  only  known  printed  version.  This  is,  however, 
expressly  denied  by  Carlell  in  "The  Author's  Advertisement" 
to  "Heraclius,  Emperour  of  the  East.  A  Tragedy.  Written  in 
French  by  Monsieur  de  Corneille.  Englished  by  Lodpvick  . 
Carlell,  Esq.  London.  1664" — a  copy  of  which  is  in  the  library 
of  the  Elizabethan  Club,  Yale  University.  The  "Advertise- 
ment" begins:  "Another  Translation  formerly  design'd  (after 
this  seem'd  to  be  accepted  of)  was  perfected  and  acted,  this, 
not  returned  to  me  until  that  very  day."  It  is  noteworthy  that 
Carlell's  translation  bears  the  date  of  "March  9,  1664," — the 
day  following  the  performance  Pepys  describes.  It  also  cdn- 
tains  a  "Prologue  Intended  for  the  Play." 

The  scene  of  the  tragedy  is  laid  in  Constantinople,  and  the 
plot  is  based  upon  the  struggle  of  Heraclius  against  the  usurper 
Phocas  for  the  throne  of  the  Eastern  Empire. 


FOREIGN  PLAYS  AND  TRANSLATIONS      199 

and  yet  heire  of  Mauricius  to  the  crowne.  The  gar- 
ments like  Romans  very  well.  The  little  girle  is  come 
to  act  very  prettily,  and  spoke  the  epilogue  most 
admirably.  But  at  the  beginning,  at  the  drawing  up 
of  the  curtaine,  there  was  the  finest  scene  of  the 
Emperor  and  his  people  about  him,  standing  in  their 
fixed  and  different  postures  in  their  Roman  habitts, 
above  all  that  ever  I  yet  saw  at  any  of  the  theatres. 

February  4,  1666-67.  To  the  Duke's  playhouse, 
and  there  saw  "Heraclius,"  an  excellent  play,  to  my 
extraordinary  content;  and  the  more  from  the  house 
being  very  full,  and  great  company.  .  .  .  Mightily 
pleased  with  the  play. 

-  September  5, 1667.    To  the  Duke  of  York's  house, 

and  there  saw  "Heraclius,"  which  is  a  good  play;  but 

they  did  so  spoil  it  with  their  laughing,  and  being  all 

(    of  them  out,  and  with  the  noise  they  made  within  the 

theatre,  that  I  was  ashamed  of  it,  and  resolve  not  to 

s  come  thither  again  a  good  while,  believing  that  this 

negligence,  which  I  never  observed  before,  proceeds 

only  from  their  want  of  company  in  the  pit,  that  they 

have  no  care  how  they  act. 


Corneille,  Pierre  HORACE 

K 

January  19,  1668-69.    To  the  King's  house,  to  see 

"Horace"  ;*  this  is  the  third  day  of  its  acting — a  silly 

1  A  translation  of  Pierre  Corneille's  tragedy  left  "unfinished" 
by  Mrs.  Katharine  Philips  at  her  death,  the  last  act  being  "after- 
ward translated  by  Sir  John  Denham"  before  1668.  (Cf.  Can- 


200  PEPYS  ON  THE  RESTORATION  STAGE 

tragedy;  but  Lacy  hath  made  a  farce  of  several 
dances — between  each  act,  one:  but  his  words  are  but 
silly,  and  invention  not  extraordinary,  as  to  the 
dances;  only  some  Dutchmen  come  out  of  the  mouth 
and  tail  of  a  Hamburgh  sow. 


Corneille,  Pierre 

THE  MISTAKEN  BEAUTY,  OR  THE  LIAR 

November  28, 1667.  To  the  King's  playhouse,  and 
there  sat  by  my  wife,  and  saw  ."The  Mistaken 
Beauty,"1  which  I  never,  I  think,  saw  before,  though 
an  old  play ;  and  there  is  much  in  it  that  I  like,  though 
the  name  is  but  improper  to  it — at  least,  that  name,  it 
being  also  called  "The  Lyer,"  which  is  proper  enough. 

field,  Corneille  and  Racine  in  England,  pp.  45-48.)  Evelyn  saw 
the  play  on  February  4,  1667-68  and  on  February  15,  1668-69. 
The  entry  of  February  4  reads:  "I  saw  ye  tragedy  of  'Horace' 
(written  by  ye  virtuous  Mrs.  Phillips)  acted  before  their  Maties. 
'Twixt  each  act  a  masq  and  antiq  daunce"  (Diary,  Wheatley  ed., 
II,  229). 

1  A  translation  of  Le  Menteur  by  an  unknown  author,  printed 
in  1685.  The  Biographia  Dramatica  (1812  ed.,  Ill,  48)  states 
that  "there  is  an  earlier  edition  of  it,  under  the  latter  title  alone, 
in  1661."  In  comparing  Corneille  with  native  dramatists  in  his 
Essay  of  Dramatic  Poesy,  1668,  Dryden  comments:  "What  has 
he  produced  except  The  Liar,  and  you  know  how  it  was  cried 
up  in  France;  but  when  it  came  upon  the  English  Stage,  though 
well  translated,  and  that  part  of  Dorant  acted  [by  Mr.  Hart] 
to  so  much  advantage  as  I  am  confident  it  never  received  in  its 
own  country,  the  most  favourable  to  it  would  not  put  it  in 
competition  with  many  of  Fletcher's  or  Ben  Jonson's"  (The 
Works  of  John  Dryden,  Scott-Saintsbury  ed.,  XV,  330). 


FOREIGN  PLAYS  AND  TRANSLATIONS      201 
Corneille,  Pierre  POMPEY  THE  GREAT 

June  23,  1666.  Down  to  Deptford,  all  the  way 
reading  Pompey  the  Great  (a  play  translated  from 
the  French  by  several  noble  persons;  among  others, 
my  Lord  Buckhurst)  /  that  to  me  is  but  a  mean  play, 
and  the  words  and  sense  not  very  extraordinary. 


Corneille,  Thomas  (?) 

THE  LABYRINTH,  OR  THE  FATAL 

E  MB  ARRASSMENT 

May  2,  1664.  To  the  King's  play-house  to  ... 
"The  Labyrinth,"1  the  poorest  play,  methinks,  that 
ever  I  saw,  there  being  nothing  in  it  but  the  odd 
accidents  that  fell  out,  by  a  lady's  being  bred  up  in 
man's  apparel,  and  a  man  in  a  woman's. 

1  A  translation  (1663)  of  Corneille's  La  Morte  de  Pompee,  by 
"certain  Persons  of  Honour" — Waller,  Earl  of  Dorset;  Sir 
Charles  Sedley;  Sidney  Godolphin;  and  Sir  Edward  Filmore. 

1  Neither  Downes,  nor  Genest,  nor  Langbaine,  throws  light 
on  this  piece.  The  only  play  of  this  name  recorded  is  a  trans- 
lation of  Ariane,  by  Thomas  Corneille,  by  Rev.  M.  Stratford, 
published  in  1795.  The  Biographia  Dramatica  (1812  ed.,  II, 
660)  gives  it  as  "The  Labyrinth,  or  The  Fatal  Embarrassment. 
Trag.  from  Corneille.  Dublin  printed,  8vo.  1795." 


202     PEPYS  ON  THE  RESTORATION  STAGE 
Unknown  Author  "FRENCH  COMEDY" 

August  30,  1661.  Then  my  wife  and  I  to  Drury 
Lane1  to  the  French  comedy;2  which  was  so  ill  done, 
and  the  scenes  and  company  and  everything  also  so 
nasty  and  out  of  order  and  poor,  that  I  was  sick  all 
the  while  in  my  mind  to  be  there  .  .  .  There  being 
nothing  pleasant  but  the  foolery  of  the  farce,  we  went 
home. 

Guarini,  Battista  THE  FAITHFUL  SHEPHERD 

February  25,  1667-68.  To  the  Nursery,  where  I 
was  yesterday,  and  there  saw  them  act  a  comedy,  a 
pastorall,  "The  Faythful  Shepherd,"1  having  curios- 
ity to  see  whether  they  did  a  comedy  better  than  a 
tragedy;2  but  they  do  it  both  alike,  in  the  meanest 
manner,  that  I  was  sick  of  it,  but  only  for  to  satisfy 
myself  once  in  seeing  the  manner  of  it,  but  I  shall  see 
them  no  more,  I  believe. 

1  Evidently  the  Cockpit  theatre  in  Drury  Lane. 

2  In  Act  I  of  D'Avenant's  A  Playhouse  to  be  Let   (1663?), 
there  is   a  Frenchman  who  has  brought  over  a  troupe  of  his 
countrymen  to  act  a  farce.     Dr.  Doran  {Annals  of  the  English 
Stage,  1865  ed.,  pp.  15-16)  refers  thus  to  such  a  company:  "In 
1661,  .£300  was  given  to  M.  Channoyeux,  as  the  King's  bounty 
to  the  French  Comedians,  and  in  1663,  a  pass  was  granted  to 
them  to  bring  over  new  scenes  and  decorations." 

1  A  pastoral  drama  from  Battista  Guarini's  II  Pastor  Fido,  the 
first    English   translation    of   which    appeared   anonymously    in 
1602.     (Cf.  Tucker  Brooke,  The  Tudor  Drama,  p.  289,  for  an 
account  of  the  several  translations.) 

2  He  had  recently  seen  them  act  The  Spanish  Tragedy,  by 
Thomas  Kyd. 


CHAPTER  VI 
DROLLS   AND   PUPPET-PLAYS 


CHAPTER  VI 
DROLLS  AND  PUPPET-PLAYS 

Drolls  THE  FRENCH  DANCING  MASTER 

May  21,  1662.  We  went  to  the  Theatre  to  "The 
French  Dancing  Master."1  .  .  .  The  play  pleased  r.;s 
very  well;  but  Lacy's  part,  the  Dancing  Master,  the 
best  in  the  world. 


Puppet-ShoWS  POLICHINELLO 

August  22,  1666.  By  coach  to  Moorfields,  and 
there  saw  "Polichinello,"1  which  pleases  me  mightily. 

1  A  "droll"  according  to  W.  C.  Hazlitt  (A  Manual  for  the  Col- 
lector and  Amateur  of  Old  English  Plays,  p.  91)  based  on 
the  Duke  of  Newcastle's  comedy  The  Variety.  Malone,  Shak- 
speare,  Vol.  I,  Part  II,  p.  267,  mentions  a  piece  of  this  title 
acted  on  March  11,  1662,  in  the  list  of  plays  performed  by 
Killigrew's  company. 

1  The  most  popular  of  the  puppet-plays  of  Italian  origin, 
widely  known  in  France  in  the  reign  of  Louis  XIV,  is  first  heard 
of  in  England  soon  after  the  Restoration.  (Cf.  Charles  Magnin, 
Histoire  des  Marionettes  en  Europe.)  It  seems  to  have  been 
much  patronized  by  the  Court  at  this  time,  but  is  more  frequently 
alluded  to  after  1688.  Probably  this  was  the  "Italian  puppet 
play"  Pepys  saw  on  May  9,  1662;  Evelyn  saw  it  on  August  21, 
1667  (Diary,  Wheatley  ed.,  II,  223). 


206  PEPYS  ON  THE  RESTORATION  STAGE 

August  29,  1666.  To  Moorfields,  and  shewed 
Batelier,  with  my  wife,  "Polichinello,"  which  I  like 
the  more  I  see  it. 

September  1,  1666.  To  "Polichinelly,"  but  were 
there  horribly  frighted  to  see  Young  Killigrew  come 
in  with  a  great  many  young  sparks;  but  we  did  hide 
ourselves,  so  as  we  think  they  did  not  see  us. 

March  20,  1666-67.  To  Polichinelli  at  Charing 
Crosse,  which  is  prettier  and  prettier,  and  so  full  of 
variety  that  it  is  extraordinary  good  entertainment. 

April  8,  1667.  Thence  away  to  Polichinello,  and 
there  had  three  times  more  sport  than  at  the  play.2 

September  4,  1667.  To  Bartholomew  fayre,  and 
there  Polichinelli. 

October  24,  1667.  To  Charing  Cross,  there  to  s~ee 
Polichinelli.  But,  it  being  begun,  we  in  to  see  a 
Frenchman. 

May  2, 16&8.  But  a  little  boy,  for  a  farce  do  dance 
Polichinelli,3  the  best  ever  anything  was  done  in  the 
\Vorld,  by  all  men's  report:  most  pleased  with  that, 
beyond  anything  in  the  world,  and  much  beyond  all 
the  play. 

August  31,  1668.  Thence  to  the  Fayre,  and  saw 
"Polichinelle." 

2  Sir  R.  Howard's  The  Surprisal. 

3  At  the  Duke's  theatre  in  a  performance  of  The  Impertinents, 
or  The  Sullen  Lovers. 


DROLLS  AND  PUPPET-PLAYS  207 

Puppet- Shows  MISCELLANEOUS 

September  7,  1661.  Here  [at  the  "Theatre"]  was 
"Bartholomew  Fayre,"  with  the  puppet-show,1  acted 
to-day,  .  .  .  but  I  do  never  a  whit  like  it  the  better 
for  the  puppets,  but  rather  the  worse. 

November  12,  1661.     To  "Bartholomew  Fayre,"  ' 
with  puppets,  which  I  had  seen  once  before,  and  the 
play  without  puppets  often,  but  though  I  love  the 
play  as  much  as  ever  I  did,  yet  I  do  not  like  the 
puppets  at  all,  but  think  it  to  be  a  lessening  to  it. 

May  9,  1662.     Thence  to  see  an  Italian  puppet 
play,2  that  is  within  the  rayles  there  [Covent  Garden] 
which  is  very  pretty,  the  best  that  ever  I  saw,  and, 
great  resort  of  gallants. 

1  Shows  by  puppets  had  been  popular   f roni  the  time  when* 
like  the  contemporary   drama   for  the   "legitimate"    stage  they 
were  based  on  stories  from  the  Bible.     Jonah  and  the  Whale  and 
The  Prodigal  Son  were  popular  sixteenth-century  puppet-plays. 
Jonson's  Bartholomew  Fair,  containing  in  Act  V  the  puppet- 
show  of  The  Modern  History  of  Hero  and  Leander,  had  been 
acted  with  puppets  as  early  as    1641.     Popular  plays   of  this 
period  were   The  Sorrows  of  Griselda,  Dick   Whittington,  and' 
The   Vagaries  of  Merry  Andrew.     From  The  Actor's  Remon-   ' 
strance,  1643  (reprinted  in  The  English  Drama  and  Stage  under 
the  Tudor  and  Stuart  Princes,  1543-1 664,  Roxburghe  Library, 
p.  262),  we  learn  that  puppet-plays  were  "still  up  with  uncon- 
trolled allowance"  during  the  dramatic  interregnum.     And  they 
held  their  own  with  the  regular  theatre  after  the  actors  were 
permitted  to  play  again:  in  Etherege's  She  Would  if  She  Could 
(1668),  Act  III,  Sc.  3,  Courtall  says  to  Sir  Joslin  Jolly:  "How 
the  people  would  throng  about  you  if  you  were  but  mounted  on 

a  few  deal  boards  in  Covent  Garden  now!" 

2  Probably  Polichinello. 


208  PEPYS  ON  THE  RESTORATION  STAGE 

May  23,  1662.  To  the  puppet  play  in  Covent 
Garden,  which  I  saw  the  other  day,  and  indeed  it  is 
very  pleasant. 

October  8,  1662.  He  [Lord  Sandwich]  is  at 
White  Hall  with  the  King,  before  whom  the  puppet 
plays  I  saw  this  summer  in  Covent-garden  are  acted 
this  night. 

November  10,  1662.  To  Charing  Cross,  and  there 
showed  her  the  Italian  motion,  much  after  the 
nature  of  what  I  showed  her  a  while  since  in  Covent 
Garden.  Their  puppets  here  are  somewhat  better, 
but  their  motions  not  at  all. 

August  6,  1663.  Having  in  our  way,  though  nine 
o'clock  at  night,  carried  them  into  a  puppet  play  in 
Lincolnes  Inn  Fields,  where  there  was  the  story  of 
Holof  ernes,  and  other  clockwork,  well  done. 

August  30, 1667.  To  Bartholomew  fayre,  to  walk 
up  and  down ;  and  there,  among  other  things,  find  my 
Lady  Castlemayne  at  a  puppet-play,  "Patient 
Grizill." 

September  4,  1668.  To  the  Fair,  ...  my  wife 
having  a  mind  to  see  the  play  "Bartholomew-Fayre" 
with  puppets.  Which  we  did. 

September  21,  1668.  To  Southwarke-Fair,  very 
dirty,  and  there  saw  the  puppet-show  of  Whitting- 
ton,  which  was  pretty  to  see ;  and  how  that  idle  thing 
do  work  upon  people  that  see  it,  and  even  myself  too ! 


PART  TWO 

CHAPTER  VII 
THE  ACTORS 


CHAPTER  VII 
THE  ACTORS 

[NOTE:  In  order  to  avoid  unnecessary  repetitions  in  Parts  II 
and  III  of  material  already  presented  in  Part  I,  all  details  in 
the  following  Chapters  not  falling  under  their  respective  special 
topics — e.g.,  Actors,  Actresses,  etc. —  have  been  as  far  as  possi- 
ble suppressed.  It  will  be  noted  that  a  full  account  of  each  play 
mentioned  has  been  given  in  Part  I.  Minor  details  in  regard 
to  individuals,  not  bearing  upon  the  history  or  the  literature  of 
the  stage,  have,  also,  generally  been  omitted.] 

Angel, 


February  22,  1667-68.  Saving  the  ridiculousnesse 
AngellV  part,  which  is  called  Trinkilo,2  I  do  not  see 
anything  extraordinary  in  it. 

1  Angel's  name  appears  in  Downes's  list  (Roscius  Anglicanus, 
p.  18)  of  original  actors  of  the  Duke's  company  who  "Commonly 
Acted    Women's     Parts"    immediately    after    the    Restoration. 
Genes t  (I,  158)  states  that  he  "originally  played  female  parts, 
and  became  in  time  an  actor  of  consequence";  also  that  no  men- 
tion of  his  name  occurs  after  1673  when  he  played  De  Boastado 
in  Ravenscroft's  The  Careless  Lovers. 

2  In  Albumazar,  at  the  Duke's  theatre. 


212     PEPYS  ON  THE  RESTORATION  STAGE 
Beeston,  William 

September  15,  1668.  When  they  come  to  say  it 
would  be  acted  again  to-morrow,  both  he  that  said  it, 
Beeson,1  and  the  pit  fell  a-laughing. 

February  2,  1668-69.  But  his  part2  is  done  by 
Beeston,  who  is  fain  to  read  it  out  of  a  book  all  the 
while,  and  thereby  spoils  the  part,  and  almost  the 
play.  .  .  .  But  it  was  pleasant  to  see  Beeston  come 
in  with  others,  supposing  it  to  be  dark,  and  yet  he  is 
forced  to  read  his  part  by  the  light  of  the  candles. 


Betterton,  Thomas 

March  1,  1660-61.  But  above  all  that  ever  I  saw, 
Betterton  do  the  Bondman  best.1 

March  19,  1660-61.  Saw  "The  Bondman"  acted 
most  excellently,  and  though  I  have  seen  it  often,  yet 

1  William  Beeston  (?-1682)  was  according  to  Downes  (Roscius 
Anglicanus,  p.  2)  among  those  who  "come  not  into  the  [King's] 
Company,  till  after  they  had  begun  in  Drury-Lane."    The  refer- 
ence is  to  The  Ladies  a  la  Mode  at  the  King's  theatre. 

2  Kynaston's  part  in  The  Heiress. 

1  The  title  part  in  Massinger's  play,  performed  on  this  date 
at  the  Salisbury  Court  theatre.  Thomas  Betterton  (1635?- 
1710)  was  easily  the  greatest  actor  of  the  Restoration  period. 
He  was  distinguished  in  comic  as  well  as  tragic  characters, 
"created"  some  one  hundred  and  thirty  parts,  of  which  his 
Hamlet  seems  most  to  have  impressed  the  public  of  this  period 
as,  according  to  Gibber,  his  Falstaff  did  that  of  a  later  time. 
Steele,  Pope,  and  Gibber  are  among  those  who  delighted  to 
praise  him. 


THE  ACTORS  213 

I  am  every  time  more  and  more  pleased  with  Better- 
ton's  action. 

August  24,  1661.  Betterton  did  the  prince's  part2 
/[in  Hamlet]  beyond  imagination. 

November  4,  1661.  But  for  Betterton  [in  The 
Bondman}  he  is  called  by  us  both  the  best  actor  in  the 
world. 

September  30, 1662.  Saw  the  "Duchess  of  Malfy" 
well  performed,  but  Betterton3  and  lanthe  to  admira- 
tion. 

December  1,  1662.  There  being  no  pleasure  in  it 
[The  Cid]  though  done  by  Betterton  and  by  lanthe, 
and  another  fine  wench  that  is  come  in  the  room  of 
Roxalana. 

May  28,  1663.  And  so  to  the  Duke's  House;  and 
there  saw  "Hamlett"  done,  giving  us  fresh  reason 
never  to  think  enough  of  Betterton. 

July  22,  1663.  He4  grew  very  proud  and  de- 
manded £20  for  himself  extraordinary,  more  than 
Betterton  or  any  body  else,  upon  every  new  play. 

July  28,  1664.  Betterton  and  my  poor  lanthe  [in 
The  Bondman]  outdo  all  the  world. 

August  13,  1664.     Wherein  Betterton,5   Harris, 

2  Downes    (Roscius   Anglicanus,    p.    21)    says:    "Sir    William 
[D'Avenant]     (having   seen    Mr.    Taylor    of   the    Black-Fryars 
Company   Act   it,   who   being    Instructed   by   the    Author,    Mr. 
Shakespeur)  taught  Mr.  Betterton  in  every  Particle  of  it;  which 
by  his  exact  Performance,  gain'd  him  Esteem  and  Reputation 
Superlative  to  all  other  plays." 

3  As  Bosola. 

4  Henry  Harris. 

5  Betterton's  part  was  Owen  Tudor. 


214  PEPYS  ON  THE  RESTORATION  STAGE 

and  lanthe's  parts  [in  Orrery's  Henry  V]  are  most 
incomparably  wrote  and  done. 

December  2,  1664.  Saw  "The  Rivalls,"  which  I 
had  seen  before;  but  the  play  not  good,  nor  anything 
but  the  good  actings  of  Betterton6  and  his  wife  and 
Harris. 

April  3, 1665.  To  a  play  .  .  .  called  "Mustapha," 
which  being  not  good,  made  Betterton's  part7  and 
lanthe's  but  ordinary  too. 

September  4, 1667.  Saw  "Mustapha"  .  .  .  bravely 
acted;  only  both  Betterton  and  Harris  could  not  con- 
tain from  laughing  in  the  midst  of  a  most  serious 
part  .  .  .  which  I  did  not  like. 

October  15,  1667.  To  the  Duke  of  York's  house, 
.  .  .  and  there  saw  "The  Coffee-house,"8  the  most 
ridiculous,  insipid  play  that  ever  I  saw  in  my  life, 
and  glad  we  were  that  Betterton  had  no  part  in  it. 

October  16, 1667.  I  was  vexed  to  see  Young  .  .  . 
act  Macbeth  in  the  room  of  Betterton,  who,  poor 
man!  is  sick. 

October  24,  1667.    Betterton  not  being  well  yet. 

November  6,  1667.  Mighty  short  of  the  content 
[in  Macbeth]  we  used  to  have  when  Betterton  acted, 
who  is  still  sick. 

February  11,  1667-68.  Do  yet  want  Betterton 
mightily  [in  Mustapha]. 

July  6, 1668.    Here  comes  Harris,  and  first  told  us 

6  As  Philander. 

7  Solyman  the  Magnificent. 

8  Tarugo's  Wiles,  or  The  Coffee  House  (1667),  by  Sir  Thomas 
St.  Serfe. 


THE  ACTORS  /         215 

how  Betterton  is  come  again  upon  the  stage:  where- 
upon my  wife  and  company  to  the  [Duke's]  house 
to  see  "Henry  the  Fifth."  .  .  .  I  to  the  playhouse, 
and  saw  a  piece  of  the  play,  and  glad  to  see  Betterton. 

August  31, 1668.  Mightily  pleased  with  it  [Ham- 
let] ;  but,  above  all,  with  Betterton,  the  best  part,  I 
believe,  that  ever  man  acted. 

February  18, 1668-69.  Only  Betterton's  part9  still 
pleases  me. 


Bird,  Theophilus 

September  24,  1662.  He  told  me  how  Bird1  hath 
lately  broke  his  leg,  while  he  was  fencing  in 
"Aglaura,"  upon  the  stage. 


Burt,  Nicholas 

October  11, 1660.  To  see  "The  Moore  of  Venice," 
which  was  well  done.  Burt1  acted  the  Moore. 

9  Memnon,  in  The  Mad  Lover. 

1  Theophilus  Bird,  who  "belonged  to  the  former  race  of  actors, 
and  did  not  long  survive  the  Restoration."  (Cf.  P.  Cunning- 
ham, The  Story  of  Nell  Gwyn,  Wheatley  ed.,  p.  14.) 

1  Nicholas  Burt  was  one  of  the  original  actors  of  principal 
roles  in  the  King's  company.  Before  the  Restoration  he  had 
played  women's  parts.  According  to  Thomas  Davies,  he  after- 
ward soon  "resigned  the  part  of  Othello  to  Hart,  who  had  pre- 
viously acted  Cassio  when  Burt  took  the  Moor"  (Dramatic 
Miscellanies,  1785  ed.,  I,  221). 


£16  PEPYS  ON  THE  RESTORATION  STAGE 

December  11,  1667.  And  Burt  acts  Cicero,2  which 
they  all  conclude  he  will  not  be  able  to  do  well. 

February  6,  1668-69.  Nor,  indeed,  Burt  doing 
the  Moor's  [part]  so  well  as  I  once  thought  he  did. 


Cart wright,  William 

November  2,  1667.  To  the  King's  playhouse,  and 
there  saw  "Henry  the  Fourth":  and  contrary  to 
expectation,  was  pleased  in  nothing  more  than  in 
Cartwright's  speaking  of  Falstaffe's  speech  about 
"What  is  Honour?"1 


Clun,  Walter 

May  8,  1663.  The  play  was  "The  Humerous 
Lieutenant"  [at  the  King's  Theatre],  a  play  that 
hath  little  good  in  it,  nor  much  in  the  very  part  which, 
by  the  King's  command,  Lacy  now  acts  instead  of 
Clun.1 

2  Burt  was,  however,  well  liked  in  this  part  in  Jonson's  Cati- 
line when  the  play  was  produced. 

xThe  last  speech  in  Act  V,  Sc.  1,  of  Henry  IV,  Part  I. 
William  Cartwright  (P-1687)  had  been  a  player  before  the  Civil 
War.  After  the  Restoration  he  became  one  of  the  original  mem- 
bers of  the  King's  company  and  was  known  as  a  "respectable" 
actor.  Among  his  other  roles  were  Morose  in  The  Silent  Woman, 
Brabantio  in  Othello,  Major  Oldfox  in  The  Plain  Dealer,  and 
Thunder  in  The  Rehearsal.  (Cf.  Genest,  I,  378-379.) 

1  Walter  Clun  (?-1664),  one  of  the  original  members  of  the 
King's  company,  had  acted  female  characters  before  the  Civil 
War.  His  best  parts  after  the  Restoration  were  those  which 
Pepys  praises — Subtle  in  The  Alchemist  and  lago  in  Othello. 


THE  ACTORS  217 

August  4j  1664-  We  hear  that  Clun,  one  of  their 
best  actors,  was,  the  last  night,  going  out  of  towne 
(after  he  had  acted  the  Alchymist,  wherein  was  one 
of  his  best  parts  that  he  acts )  to  his  country-house,  set 
upon  and  murdered ;  one  of  the  rogues  taken,  an  Irish 
fellow.  It  seems  most  cruelly  butchered  and  bound. 
The  house  will  have  a  great  miss  of  him. 

August  5, 1664.  In  the  way,  at  Kentish-towne,  he 
showing  me  the  place  and  manner  of  Chin's  being 
killed  and  laid  in  a  ditch,  and  yet  he  was  not  killed  by 
any  wounds,  having  only  one  in  his  arm,  but  bled  to 
death  through  his  struggling.  He  told  me,  also,  the 
manner  of  it,  of  his  going  home  so  late  [from]  drink- 
ing with  his  whore,  and  manner  of  having  found  it 
out. 

February  6,  1668-69.  Mohun,  which  did  a  little 
surprise  me,  not  acting  lago's  part  by  much  as  well  as 
Clun  used  to  do. 

April  17, 1669.  It  [The  Alchemist]  is  still  a  good 
play,  having  not  been  acted  for  two  or  three  years 
before ;  but  I  do  miss  Clun  for  the  Doctor. 


Haines,  Joseph 

March  7,  1667-68.  The  dances  .  .  .  excellently 
done,  especially  one  part  by  one  Hanes,1  only  lately 
come  thither  from  the  Nursery,  an  understanding 

1  Joseph  Haines  (P-1701),  the  popular  comedian,  dancer,  and 
coffee-house  wit,  had  just  joined  the  King's  company.  "Joe 
Haines,"  says  Anthony  Ashton  in  his  Brief  Supplement  to 
Colley  Gibber's  Apology  (Lowe  ed.,  II,  314),  "is  more  remark- 


218  PEPYS  ON  THE  RESTORATION  STAGE 

fellow,  but  yet,  they  say,  hath  spent  £1000  a  year 
before  he  come  thither. 

May  7,  1668.  Here  [at  Knepp's  lodgings]  was 
also  Haynes,  the  incomparable  dancer  of  the  King's 
house,  and  a  seeming  civil  man,  and  sings  pretty  well. 


Harris,  Henry 

July  22,  1663.  At  Wotton's,  the  shoe-maker's, 
who  tells  me  the  reason  of  Harris's1  going  from  Sir 
Wm.  Davenant's  house,  that  he  grew  very  proud 
and  demanded  <£20  for  himself  extraordinary,  more 
than  Betterton  or  any  body  else,  upon  every  new  play, 
and  <£lO  upon  every  revive;  which  with  other  things 

able  for  the  witty,  tho'  wicked,  Pranks  he  play'd,  and  for  his 
Prologues  and  Epilogues,  than  for  Acting."  His  best  parts, 
such  as  Sparkish  in  The  Country  Wife  and  Captain  Bluff  in 
Corigreve's  Old  Bachelor,  were  created  after  Pepys  had  brought 
his  Diary  to  a  close.  The  reference  here  is  to  a  performance  of 
The  Spanish  Gypsy  at  the  King's  theatre. 

1  Henry  Harris  (P-1681),  originally  a  "painter,"  appears  to 
have  been  the  "matinee  idol"  of  his  day  and  was  somewhat 
spoiled,  according  to  Pepys's  entries  concerning  him  for  this 
date  and  for  February  6,  1667-68.  It  is  expressly  stated  in 
the  Letters  Patent  issued  to  D'Avenant,  January  15,  1662,  that 
an  actor  who  withdrew  from  either  one  of  the  two  companies 
could  not  be  received  into  the  other.  Harris  proved,  however, 
to  be  an  accomplished  comedian,  playing  Sir  Andrew  Aguecheek 
and  Sir  Joslin  Jolly,  and  was  also  successful  in  such  parts  as 
Romeo  and  Orrery's  Henry  the  Fifth.  According  to  the  list  of 
his  roles  given  by  Genest  (I,  pp.  388-389),  his  first  was  Alphonso 
in  The  Siege  of  Rhodes,  1661,  his  last  Cardinal  Beaufort  in 
Crowne's  Henry  VI,  1681. 


THE  ACTORS  219 

Sir  W.  Davenant  would  not  give  him,  and  so  he 
swore  he  would  never  act  there  more,  in  expectation 
of  being  received  in  the  other  House;  but  the  King 
will  not  suffer  it,  upon  Sir  W.  Davenant's  desire  that 
he  would  not,  for  then  he  might  shut  up  house,  and 
that  is  true.  He  tells  me  that  his  going  is  at  present 
a  great  loss  to  the  House,  and  that  he  fears  he  hath  a 
stipend  from  the  other  house  privately.  He  tells  me 
that  the  fellow  grew  very  proud  of  late,  the  King  and 
every  body  else  crying  him  up  so  high,  and  that  above 
Betterton,  he  being  a  more  ayery  man,  as  he  is  indeed. 
But  yet  Betterton,  he  says,  they  all  say  do  act  some 
parts  that  none  but  himself  can  do. 

December  10, 1663.  Calling  at  Wotton's,  my  shoe- 
maker's, to-day,  he  tells  me  .  .  .  that  Harris  is  come 
to  the  Duke's  house  again. 

February  3,  1663-64.  In  Covent  Garden  tonight, 
...  I  stopped  at  the  great  Coffee-house  there,  where 
...  all  the  wits  of  the  town,  and  Harris  the  player. 

July  20,  1664.  Very  pleasant  it  was  [Worse  and 
Worse~\  and  I  begin  to  admire  Harris  more  than  ever. 

August  13, 1664.  Wherein  Betterton,  Harris,  and 
lanthe's  parts  [in  Henry  F]  are  most  incomparably 
wrote  and  done. 

September  10, 1664.  [Gosnell]  fell  out  of  the  key 
[in  The  Rivals']  .  .  .  and  so  did  Harris2  also  go  out 
of  the  tune  to  agree  with  her. 

December  2,  1664.  The  play  [The  Rivals']  not 
good,  nor  anything  but  the  good  actings  of  Betterton 
and  his  wife  and  Harris. 

2  His  role  in  this  play  by  D'Avenant  was  Theocles. 


218  PEPYS  ON  THE  RESTORATION  STAGE 

fellow,  but  yet,  they  say,  hath  spent  £1000  a  year 
before  he  come  thither. 

May  7,  1668.  Here  [at  Knepp's  lodgings]  was 
also  Haynes,  the  incomparable  dancer  of  the  King's 
house,  and  a  seeming  civil  man,  and  sings  pretty  well. 


Harris,  Henry 

July  22,  1663.  At  Wotton's,  the  shoe-maker's, 
who  tells  me  the  reason  of  Harris's1  going  from  Sir 
Wm.  Davenant's  house,  that  he  grew  very  proud 
and  demanded  £20  for  himself  extraordinary,  more 
than  Betterton  or  any  body  else,  upon  every  new  play, 
and  £10  upon  every  revive;  which  with  other  things 

able  for  the  witty,  tho'  wicked,  Pranks  he  play'd,  and  for  his 
Prologues  and  Epilogues,  than  for  Acting."  His  best  parts, 
such  as  Sparkish  in  The  Country  Wife  and  Captain  Bluff  in 
Corigreve's  Old  Bachelor,  were  created  after  Pepys  had  brought 
his  Diary  to  a  close.  The  reference  here  is  to  a  performance  of 
The  Spanish  Gypsy  at  the  King's  theatre. 

1  Henry  Harris  (P-1681),  originally  a  "painter/'  appears  to 
have  been  the  "matinee  idol"  of  his  day  and  was  somewhat 
spoiled,  according  to  Pepys's  entries  concerning  him  for  this 
date  and  for  February  6,  1667-68.  It  is  expressly  stated  in 
the  Letters  Patent  issued  to  D'Avenant,  January  15,  1662,  that 
an  actor  who  withdrew  from  either  one  of  the  two  companies 
could  not  be  received  into  the  other.  Harris  proved,  however, 
to  be  an  accomplished  comedian,  playing  Sir  Andrew  Aguecheek 
and  Sir  Joslin  Jolly,  and  was  also  successful  in  such  parts  as 
Romeo  and  Orrery's  Henry  the  Fifth.  According  to  the  list  of 
his  roles  given  by  Genest  (I,  pp.  388-389),  his  first  was  Alphonso 
in  The  Siege  of  Rhodes,  1661,  his  last  Cardinal  Beaufort  in 
Crowne's  Henry  VI,  1681. 


THE  ACTORS  219 

Sir  W.  Davenant  would  not  give  him,  and  so  he 
swore  he  would  never  act  there  more,  in  expectation 
of  being  received  in  the  other  House;  but  the  King 
will  not  suffer  it,  upon  Sir  W.  Davenant's  desire  that 
he  would  not,  for  then  he  might  shut  up  house,  and 
that  is  true.  He  tells  me  that  his  going  is  at  present 
a  great  loss  to  the  House,  and  that  he  fears  he  hath  a 
stipend  from  the  other  house  privately.  He  tells  me 
that  the  fellow  grew  very  proud  of  late,  the  King  and 
every  body  else  crying  him  up  so  high,  and  that  above 
Betterton,  he  being  a  more  ayery  man,  as  he  is  indeed. 
But  yet  Betterton,  he  says,  they  all  say  do  act  some 
parts  that  none  but  himself  can  do. 

December  10, 1663.  Calling  at  Wotton's,  my  shoe- 
maker's, to-day,  he  tells  me  .  .  .  that  Harris  is  come 
to  the  Duke's  house  again. 

February  3,  1663-64.  In  Covent  Garden  tonight, 
...  I  stopped  at  the  great  Coffee-house  there,  where 
...  all  the  wits  of  the  town,  and  Harris  the  player. 

July  20,  1664.  Very  pleasant  it  was  [Worse  and 
Worse]  and  I  begin  to  admire  Harris  more  than  ever. 

August  13, 1664.  Wherein  Betterton,  Harris,  and 
lanthe's  parts  [in  Henry  V\  are  most  incomparably 
wrote  and  done. 

September  10,  1664.  [Gosnell]  fell  out  of  the  key 
[in  The  Rivals]  .  .  .  and  so  did  Harris2  also  go  out 
of  the  tune  to  agree  with  her. 

December  2,  1664.  The  play  [The  Rivals]  not 
good,  nor  anything  but  the  good  actings  of  Betterton 
and  his  wife  and  Harris. 

2  His  role  in  this  play  by  D'Avenant  was  Theocles. 


220  PEPYS  ON  THE  RESTORATION  STAGE 

January  24,  1666-67.  Harris  I  first  took  to  my 
closet ;  and  I  find  him  a  very  serious  and  understand- 
ing person  in  all  pictures  and  other  things,  and  a  man 
of  fine  conversation. 

February  20,  1666-67.  When  we  come  to  the 
Duke  of  York  here,  I  heard  discourse  how  Harris  of 
his  play-house  is  sick,  and  everybody  commends  him, 
and,  above  all  things,  for  acting  the  Cardinall.3 

February  27,  1666-67.  Here  I  find  Harris's  pic- 
ture, done  in  his  habit. 

September  4,  1667.  Both  Betterton  and  Harris 
could  not  contain  from  laughing  in  the  midst  of  a 
most  serious  part  [in  Mustapha],  from  the  ridiculous 
mistake  of  one  of  the  men  upon  the  stage. 

December  11, 1667.  Here  [in  Westminster  Hall] 
I  met  .  .  .  Harris,  the  player,  and  there  we  talked 
of  many  things,  and  particularly  of  "Catiline,"  which 
is  to  be  suddenly  acted  at  the  King's  house ;  and  there 
all  agree  that  it  cannot  be  well  done  at  that  house, 
there  not  being  good  actors  enow.  .  .  .  Thence  home 
to  dinner,  and  would  have  had  Harris  home  with  me, 
but  it  was  too  late  for  him  to  get  to  the  playhouse 
after  it. 

January  6,  1667-68.  Did  go  home  to  dinner,  and 
there  find  Mr.  Harris,  by  the  like  mistake,  come  to 
dine  with  me.  However,  we  did  get  a  pretty  dinner 
ready  for  him;  and  there  he  and  I  to  discourse  of 
many  things,  and  I  do  find  him  a  very  excellent  per- 
son, such  as  in  my  whole  [acquaintance]  I  do  not 
know  another  better  qualified  for  converse,  whether 

3  Probably  Cardinal  Wolsey  in  Henry  VIII. 


THE  ACTORS  221 

in  things  of  his  own  trade,  or  of  other  kinds,  a  man  of 
great  understanding  and  observation,  and  very 
agreeable  in  the  manner  of  his  discourse,  and  civil  as 
far  as  is  possible.  .  .  .  To  the  Duke's  house.  .  .  . 
Thence,  after  the  play,  stayed  till  Harris  was  un- 
dressed, there  being  acted  "The  Tempest,"  and  so  he 
withall,  all  by  coach,  home. 

February  6,  1667-68.  I  did  hear  [Etherege] 
mightily  find  fault  with  the  actors,  .  .  .  that  Harris 
did  do  nothing4  [in  She  Would  if  She  Could],  nor 
could  so  much  as  sing  a  ketch  in  it. 

March  23,  1667-68.  We  are  defeated  of  Knepp, 
by  her  being  forced  to  act  to-day,  and  also  of  Harris, 
which  did  trouble  me,  they  being  my  chief  guests.  .  .  . 
By  and  by  Mr.  Harris. 

March  24, 1668.  To  prick  out  my  song,  "It  is  De- 
creed," intending  to  have  it  ready  to  give  to  Mr. 
Harris  on  Thursday,  when  we  meet,  for  him  to  sing, 
believing  that  he  will  do  it  more  right  than  a  woman 
that  sings  better,  unless  it  were  Knepp. 

March  26,  1668.  The  epilogue  [The  Man's  the 
Master]  little  in  it  but  the  extraordinariness  of  it,  it 
being  sung  by  Harris  and  another  in  the  form  of  a 
ballet.  Thence  to  ...  the  Blue  Balls  .  .  .  and  anon 
comes  .  .  .  Harris ;  .  .  .  and  mighty  merry  we  were 
till  about  eleven  or  twelve  at  night. 

March  29,  1668.  At  home  to  dinner,  .  .  .  and  by 
invitation  Mr.  Harris.  .  .  .  Harris  do  so  commend 
my  wife's  picture  of  Mr.  Hale's,  that  I  shall  have  him 
draw  Harris's  head,  i  / 

4  He  played  Sir  Joslin  Jolly. 


222  PEPYS  ON  THE  RESTORATION  STAGE 

March  30, 1668.  I  away  with  Harris  and  Hales  to 
the  Coffee-house,  .  .  .  and  there  resolve  for  Hales 
to  begin  Harris's  head  for  me,  which  I  will  be  at  the 
cost  of. 

April  26,  1668.  Thence  with  Hales  to  his  house, 
and  there  did  see  his  beginning  of  Harris's  picture, 
which  I  think  will  be  pretty  like,  and  he  promises  a 
very  good  picture. 

April  29,  1668.  After  the  play  done  [Love  in  a 
Tub],  I  stepped  up  to  Harris's  dressing-room,5  where 
I  never  was,  and  there  I  observe  much  company  come 
to  him,  and  the  Witts,  to  talk,  after  the  play  is  done, 
and  to  assign  meetings. 

May  11,  1668.  Between  two  acts  [of  The  Temp- 
est], I  went  out  to  Mr.  Harris  and  got  him  to  repeat 
to  me  the  words  of  the  Echo,  while  I  writ  them  down. 

May  20,  1668.  To  Hale's,  and  there  saw  the  be- 
ginnings of  Harris's  head  which  he  draws  for  me, 
which  I  do  not  yet  like. 

May  30,  1668.  And  here  I  first  understood  by 
their  talk  the  meaning  of  the  company  that  lately 
were  called  Bailers;  Harris  telling  how  it  was  by  a 
meeting  of  some  young  blades,  where  he  was  among 
them  and  my  Lady  Bennet6  and  her  ladies. 

June  1,  1668.  I  met  with  Harris  and  Rolt,  and 
carried  them  to  the  Rhenish  wine-house.  .  .  .  Here 
I  did  get  the  words  of  a  song  of  Harris,  that  I  wanted. 

July  19,  1668.    Come  Mr.  Cooper,  Hales,  Harris, 

5  Harris's  part  in  this  play  was  Sir  Frederick  Frolic. 

6  A  notorious  procuress,  to  whom  Wycherley  dedicated   The 
Plain  Dealer  (1674). 


THE  ACTORS  223 

Mr.  Butler,  that  wrote  Hudibras  .  .  .  and  there  we 
dined. 

August  26, 1668.  To  Mr.  Batelier's  .  .  .  where  I 
find  my  wife  and  Knepp  and  Harris;  .  .  .  and  here 
danced  all  night  long,  with  a  noble  supper. 

August  29,  1668.  Thence  carried  Harris  to  his 
playhouse,  where,  though  four  o'clock,  so  few  people 
there  at  "The  Impertinents,"  as  I  went  out. 

September  5,  1668.  To  Mr.  Hales's  new  house, 
.  .  .  and  here  I  find  Harris's  picture,  done  in  his 
habit  of  "Henry  the  Fifth";7  mighty  like  a  player, 
but  I  do  not  think  the  picture  near  so  good  as  any  yet 
he  hath  made  for  me:  however  it  is  pretty  well. 

September  20,  1668.  To  dinner,  staying  till  past 
one  o'clock  for  Harris,  whom  I  invited,  and  to  bring 
Shadwell  the  poet  with  him ;  but  they  come  not. 

February  25,  1668-69.  A  good  martial  dance  of 
pikemen  [in  The  Royal  Shepherdess'}  where  Harris 
and  another  do  handle  their  pikes  in  a  dance  to 
admiration. 

April  16,  1669.  Harris,  who  hath  no  part  in  it 
[Guzman},  did  come  to  me,  and  told  me  in  discourse 
that  he  was  glad  of  it,  it  being  a  play  that  will  not 
take. 

May  7, 1669.  He  [Silas  Taylor]  did  once  offer  to 
show  Harris  it  [his  play],  but  Harris  told  him  he 
would  judge  by  one  Act  whether  it  were  good  or  no, 
which  is  indeed  a  foolish  saying. 

7  In  the  Earl  of  Orrery's  play  of  that  name. 


226  PEPYS  ON  THE  RESTORATION  STAGE 

with  sticks  by  two  or  three  that  assaulted  him,  so  as 
he  is  mightily  bruised,  and  forced  to  keep  his  bed. 

February  2,  1668-69.  They  say  the  King  is  very 
angry  with  Sir  Charles  Sedley  for  his  being  beaten, 
but  he  do  deny  it.  But  his  part  is  done  by  Beeston. 

February  9,  1668-69.  Here  [in  The  Island  Prin- 
cess] we  find  Kinaston  to  be  well  enough  to  act  again, 
which  he  do  very  well,  after  his  beating. 


Lacy,  John 

May  21, 1662.    Lacy's1  part  [in  The  French  Danc- 

of  Mr.  Colley  Gibber,  Lowe  ed.,  II,  341),  "of  which  he  was  so 
proud,  that  he  endeavored  to  display  it  by  the  most  particular 
expedients."  Then  follows  a  different  story  in  the  same  vein. 

1  John  Lacy  (P-1681),  who  is  said  to  have  been  taught  danc- 
ing by  John  Ogilby,  was  a  member  of  the  King's  company. 
Langbaine  (pp.  317-318)  gives  a  glowing  account  of  him:  "A 
Comedian  whose  Abilities  in  Acting  were  sufficiently  known  to 
all  that  frequented  the  King's  Theatre,  where  he  was  for  many 
years  an  Actor,  and  perform'd  all  Parts  that  he  undertook  to  a 
miracle:  in  so  much  that  I  am  apt  to  believe  that  as  this  Age 
never  had,  so  the  next  never  will  have  his  Equal,  at  least  not 
his  Superior.  He  was  so  well  approv'd  of  by  King  Charles  the 
Second,  an  undeniable  Judge  in  Dramatick  Arts,  that  he  caus'd 
his  Picture  to  be  drawn,  in  three  several  Figures  in  the  same 
Table,  viz.  that  of  Teague  in  the  Committee,  Mr.  Scruple  in 
The  Cheats,  and  Mr.  Galliard,  in  The  Variety:  which  piece  is 
still  in  being  in  Windsor  Castle:  nor  did  his  Talent  wholly  ly  in 
Acting,  he  knew  both  how  to  judge  and  to  write  Plays."  Lang- 
baine then  proceeds  to  discuss  Lacy's  four  plays,  of  which  The 
Old  Troop,  or  Monsieur  Raggou  is  the  most  notable. 

Evelyn  refers  to  Lacy  under  the  date  of  October   14,   1662, 


THE  ACTORS  227 

ing  Master],  the  Dancing  Master,  the  best  in  the 
world. 

May  22,  1662.  The  play  [Love  in  a  Maze]  hath 
little  in  it,  but  Lacy's  part  of  a  country  fellow,  which 
he  did  to  admiration. 

May  8,  1663.  The  play  was  "The  Humerous 
Lieutenant,"  a  play  that  hath  little  good  in  it,  nor 
much  in  the  very  part  which,2  by  the  King's  command, 
Lacy  now  acts  instead  of  Clun. 

June  10,  1663.  The  play  [Love  in  a  Maze]  is 
pretty  good,  but  the  life  of  the  play  is  Lacy's  part, 
the  clown,  which  is  most  admirable. 

June  12,  1663.  Saw  "The  Committee,"  a  merry 
but  indifferent  play,  only  Lacey's  part,  an  Irish  foot- 
man,3 is  beyond  imagination. 

June  13, 1663.  I  am  quite  out  of  opinion  with  any 
of  their  actings,  but  Lacy's  [in  the  King's  company] 
compared  with  the  other  house. 

April  9,  1667.  The  best  part,  "Sawny,"  [in 
Sawney  the  Scot]  done  by  Lacy,  hath  not  half  its  life, 
by  reason  of  the  words,  I  suppose,  not  being  under- 
stood, at  least  by  me. 

April  15,  1667.  Lacy  did  act  the  country-gentle- 
man [in  The  Change  of  Crowns']  come  up  to  Court, 
who  do  abuse  the  Court  with  all  the  imaginable  wit 
and  plainness  about  selling  of  places,  and  doing  every 
thing  for  money. 

as  "the  famous  Roscius  or  comedian/'  and  on  November  27 
records  seeing  The  Committee,  "where  ye  mimic  Lacy  acted  the 
Irish  footeman  to  admiration"  (Diary,  Wheatley  ed.,  II,  155). 

2  The  Lieutenant  was  Clun's  part  in  the  original  cast. 

3  Teague. 


228  PEPYS  ON  THE  RESTORATION  STAGE 

April  16,  1667.  Knipp  tells  me  the  King  was  so 
angry  at  the  liberty  taken  by  Lacy's  part  to  abuse 
him  to  his  face,  that  he  commanded  they  should  act 
no  more,  till  Moone  [Mohun]  went  and  got  leave  for 
them  to  act  again,  but  not  this  play  [The  Change  of 
Crowns] .  The  King  mighty  angry ;  and  it  was  bitter 
indeed,  but  very  true  and  witty. 

April  20, 1667.  Here  [at  the  Duke's  theatre]  met 
with  Mr.  Holt,  who  tells  me  the  reason  of  no  play  to- 
day at  the  King's  house.  That  Lacy4  had  been  com- 
mitted to  the  porter's  lodge  for  acting  his  part  in  the 
late  new  play  [The  Change  of  Crowns],  and  that 
being  thence  released  he  come  to  the  King's  house, 
there  met  with  Ned  Howard,  the  poet  of  the  play, 
who  congratulated  his  release;  upon  which  Lacy 
cursed  him  as  that  it  was  the  fault  of  his  nonsensical 
play  that  was  the  cause  of  his  ill  usage.  Mr.  Howard 
did  give  him  some  reply;  to  which  Lacy  [answered] 
him,  that  he  was  more  a  fool  than  a  poet ;  upon  which 
Howard  did  give  him  a  blow  on  the  face  with  his 
glove;  on  which  Lacy  having  a  cane  in  his  hand,  did 
give  him  a  blow  over  the  pate.  Here  Holt  and  others 
that  discoursed  of  it  in  the  pit  this  afternoon  did 
wonder  that  Howard  did  not  run  him  through,  he 
being  too  mean  a  fellow  to  fight  him.  But  Howard 
did  not  do  anything  but  complain  to  the  King  of  it; 
so  the  whole  house  is  silenced,  and  the  gentry  seem 
to  rejoice  much  at  it,  the  house  being  become  too 
insolent. 

4  It  is  said  that  Lacy  was  noted  for  showing  his  contempt  of 
courtiers,  both  on  and  off  the  stage. 


THE  ACTORS  229 

May  1,  1667.  To  the  King's  playhouse,  .  .  .  and 
saw  "Love  in  a  Maze":  but  a  sorry  play:  only  Lacy's 
clowne's  part,5  which  he  did  most  admirably  indeed; 
and  I  am  glad  to  find  the  rogue  at  liberty  again. 
Here  was  but  little,  and  that  ordinary,  company. 

July  13,  1667.  Yesterday  Sir  Thomas  Crew  told 
me  that  Lacy  lies  a-dying  of  the  pox. 

August  13, 1667.  Lacy's  part  [in  The  Committee] 
is  so  well  performed  that  it  would  set  off  anything. 

April  28, 1668.  Did  see  "Love  in  a  Maze"  wherein 
very  good  mirth  of  Lacy,  the  clown. 

January  11,  1668-69.  Saw  "The  Joviall  Crew"; 
but  ill  acted  to  what  it  was  heretofore,  in  Clun's  time, 
and  when  Lacy  could  dance. 

January  19,  1668-69.  Lacy  hath  made  a  farce  of 
several  dances — between  each  act  [of  Horace]  one: 
but  his  words  are  but  silly,  and  invention  not  extraor- 
dinary, as  to  the  dances;  only  some  Dutchmen  come 
out  of  the  mouth  and  tail  of  a  Hamburgh  sow. 


Mohun,  Michael 

November  20,  1660.  And  here  I  saw  [in  The 
Beggar's  Bush]  the  first  time  one  Moone,1  who  is 

5  Johnny  Thump. 

1  Michael  Mohun  (1620P-1691  ?),  whose  name  is  variously 
spelled  by  Pepys,  was  one  of  the  best  actors  of  emotional  parts 
in  the  King's  company;  according  to  Downes,  "An  Eminent 
Poet/'  Nathaniel  Lee,  is  once  said  to  have  remarked:  "Oh, 
Mohun,  Mohun!  Thou  little  Man  of  Mettle,  if  I  should  Write  a 
100  Plays  I'd  Write  a  Part  for  thy  Mouth"  (Roscius  Anglicanus, 
p.  17). 


230  PEPYS  ON  THE  RESTORATION  STAGE 

said  to  be  the  best  actor  in  the  world,  lately  come  over 
with  the  King. 

November  22,  1660.  I  to  the  new  playhouse  and 
saw  part  of  the  "Traitor,"  a  very  good  Tragedy;  Mr. 
Moon  did  act  the  Traitor  very  well. 

December  7 ,  1667.  But  the  King's  house  is  at 
present  and  hath  for  some  days  been  silenced  upon 
some  difference  [between]  Hart  and  Moone. 

February  6,  1668-69.  Mohun,  which  did  a  little 
surprise  me,  not  acting  lago's  part  by  much  so  well 
as  Clun  used  to  do. 


Sandford,  Samuel 

March  26, 1668.  To  the  Duke  of  York's  house,  to 
see  the  new  play,  called  "The  Man  is  the  Master" 
.  .  .  translated  by  Sir  W.  Davenant,  .  .  .  the  pro- 
logue but  poor,  and  the  epilogue  little  in  it,  but 
the  extraordinariness  of  it,  it  being  sung  by  Harris 
and  another1  in  the  form  in  a  ballet. 

1  This  was  Samuel  Sandford  (P-1704?),  who  belonged  to  the 
Duke's  company.  He  is  described  by  Colley  Gibber  (Apology, 
Lowe  ed.,  I,  pp.  130-131)  as  "an  excellent  Actor  in  disagree- 
able Characters."  "Sandford  upon  the  Stage/'  continues  Gibber, 
"was  generally  as  flagitious  as  a  Creon,  a  Maligni,  an  I  ago,  or  a 
Machiavil  could  make  him.  .  .  .  But  poor  Sandford  was  not  the 
Stage- Villain  by  Choice,  but  from  Necessity;  for  having  a  low 
and  crooked  Person,  such  bodily  Defects  were  too  strong  to  be 
admitted  into  great  or  amiable  Characters,  so  that  whenever  in 
any  new  or  revived  Play  there  was  a  hateful  or  mischievous 
Person,  Sandford  was  sure  to  have  no  competition  for  it." 


THE  ACTORS  231 

Smith,  William 

November  14,  1666.  She  [Knepp]  tells  me  how 
Smith,1  of  the  Duke's  house,  hath  killed  a  man  upon  a 
quarrel  in  play;  which  makes  every  body  sorry,  he 
being  a  good  actor,  and,  they  say,  a  good  man,  how- 
ever this  happens.  The  ladies  of  the  Court  do  much 
bemoan  him,  she  says. 

October  24,  1667.  I  hear  that  Smith  do  act  his 
[Betterton's]  part  in  "The  Villaine,"  which  was  then 
acted  as  well  or  better  than  he,  which  I  do  not  believe. 

February  11,  1667-68.  I  never  saw  such  good 
acting  of  any  creature  as  Smith's  part  of  Zanger.2 


Wintersell,  William 

April  28,  1668.  Very  good  mirth  of  Lacy,  the 
clown,  and  Wintersell,1  the  country-knight,  his 
master. 

1  William   Smith    (P-1696?)    often   played   in   the   same   cast 
with  Sandford,  to  whom  he  was  a  great  contrast,  being  tall  and 
handsome.     He  was  the  original  Sir  Fopling  Flutter,  and  the 
Chamont   of   Otway's    The    Orphan.      Downes    (Roscius   Angli- 
canus,  p.  44)  states  in  connection  with  Banks's  The  Grand  Cyrus 
(1696)  that  "Mr.  Smith  having  a  long  part  in  it,  fell  Sick  upon 
the  Fourth  Day  and  Dy'd." 

2  In  the  Earl  of  Orrery's  Mustapha. 

1  William  Wintersell  (?-1679)  was  one  of  the  original  actors 
of  the  King's  company.  "Mr.  Wintersell,"  says  Downes 
(Roscius  Anglicanus,  p.  17),  "was  good  in  Tragedy,  as  well  as 
in  Comedy,  especially  in  Cokes  in  'Bartholomew  Fair.'  "  He 
played  the  part  of  the  King  in  The  Humorous  Lieutenant  at 


232     PEPYS  ON  THE  RESTORATION  STAGE 
Young,  - 

October  16, 1667.  I  was  vexed  to  see  Young1  (who 
is  but  a  bad  actor  at  best)  act  Macbeth  in  the  room 
of  Betterton. 


Gfeneral  References  to  Actors 

February  23,  1660-61.  Besides,  I  see  the  gallants 
begin  to  be  tyred  with  the  vanity  and  pride  of  the 
theatre  actors  who  are  indeed  grown  very  proud  and 
rich.1 

March  2,  1660-61.  But  above  all  it  was  strange  to 
see  [in  The  Queen's  Masque  at  Salisbury  Court]  so 
little  a  boy  as  that  was  to  act  Cupid,  which  is  one  of 
the  greatest  parts  in  it. 

the  opening  performance  of  the  Drury  Lane  Theatre,  May  7  (?), 
1663.  The  part  here  referred  to  is  Sir  Gervase  Simple  in  Love 
in  a  Maze. 

1 Young  was  apparently  a  lesser  member  of  the  Duke's 

company. 

1  See  H.  B.  Baker's  English  Actors  from  Shakespeare  to 
Macready,  II,  Appendix,  Note  D,  for  a  statement  as  to  the 
salaries  of  prominent  actors  at  this  time.  Baker  gives  Hart's 
salary  as  <£3  a  week,  and  Betterton's  and  Mrs.  Betterton's 
together  as  £5.  From  Pepys's  statement  about  Harris  under 
July  22,  1663,  it  appears  that  there  was  also  an  extra  bonus  for 
every  new  play  and  every  old  play  revived,  and  we  hear  occa- 
sionally of  benefit  performances.  But  even  so,  the  actor's  life 
was  not  all  beer  and  skittles.  Pepys  refers  later  to  actors  who 
were  cruelly  beaten,  and  even  slit  in  the  nose,  by  playgoers  whom 
their  acting  had  disgruntled. 


THE  ACTORS  233 

March  23,  1660-61.  The  actors  [at  the  Red  Bull] 
but  common  fellows.2 

December  11, 1667 .  Here  I  met  .  .  .  Harris,  the 
player,  and  there  we  talked  of  many  things,  and  par- 
ticularly of  "Catiline,"  which  is  to  be  suddenly  acted 
at  the  King's  house;  and  there  all  agree  that  it  can- 
not be  well  done  at  that  house,3  there  not  being  good 
actors  enow. 

2  The  Duke's  and  the  King's*  theatres  had  attracted  all  the 
good   actors   away   from   the   Red   Bull   where   a   company   had 
promptly   assembled   after   the   issuing   of   the   permit    for   the 
opening  of  the  theatres  in  1659. 

3  It  should  be,  of  course,  noted  that  the  speaker  belonged  to 
the  rival  company. 


CHAPTER  VIII 
THE   ACTRESSES 


CHAPTER  VIII 
THE  ACTRESSES 

Betterton,  Mary  Saunderson  ("lanthe") 

April  2, 1662.  Though  we  had  seen  it  [The  Bond- 
man'] so  often,  yet  I  never  liked  it  better  than  to-day, 
lanthe1  acting  Cleora's  part  very  well  now  Roxalana2 
is  gone. 

September  30, 1662.    Saw  the  "Duchess  of  Malfy" 

1  "lanthe"  was  Mary  Saunderson  (P-1712),  one  of  the  prin- 
cipal actresses   of  the   Duke's   company,   who   married   Thomas 
Betterton  in  December,  1662.     Of  her  marriage  and  subsequent 
career,  the  author  of  The  History  of  the  English  Stage  (1741) 
writes  as  follows:  "Mr.  Betterton,  now  making,  among  the  Men, 
the  Foremost  Figure  in  Sir  William  D'Avenant's  Company,  he 
cast  his   Eyes  on  Mrs.   Saunderson,  who  was   no  less   eminent 
among  the  Women,  and  married  her.     She  was  bred  in  the  House 
of  the  Patentee,  improved  herself  daily  in  her  Profession,  and 
having,  by  Nature,  all  the  Accomplishments   required  to  make 
a  perfect  Actress,  she  added  to  them  the  distinguishing  Char- 
acteristick  of  a  virtuous  Life"    (p.  9).     In  the  same  vein,  the 
Biographia    Dramatica    (1812    ed.)     comments:    "Both    as    an 
actress  and  as  a  woman   [Mrs.  Betterton]   was  everything  that 
human  perfection  was  capable  of  arriving  at"   (Vol.  I,  Part  II, 
p.    37).      The   appeal   of   her   impersonations    of    Shakespeare's 
heroines  from  Juliet  to  Lady  Macbeth  is  said  to  have  been  due 
in  part  to  her  remarkably  clear  and  graceful  reading  of  the  lines. 

2  Mrs.  Davenport. 


238  PEPYS  ON  THE  RESTORATION  STAGE 

well  performed,  but  Betterton  and  lanthe3  to  admira- 
tion. 

October  22,  1662.  Benier,  .  .  .  being  acquainted 
with  all  the  players,  do  tell  me  that  Betterton  is  not 
married  to  lanthe,  as  they  say. 

December  13  1662.  There  being  no  pleasure  in  it 
[The  Cid],  though  done  by  Betterton  and  by  lanthe. 

February  1,  1663-64.  Her  [Anne  Marshall's] 
voice  not  so  sweet  as  lanthe's. 

July  28, 1664.  But  Betterton  and  my  poor  lanthe 
outdo  all  the  world  [in  The  Bondman']. 

April  13,  1664.  Betterton,  Harris,  and  lanthe's 
parts4  [in  Orrery's  Henry  V]  are  most  incomparably 
wrote  and  done. 

December  23  1664.  The  play  [The  Rivals]  not 
good,  nor  anything  but  the  good  actings  of  Better- 
ton  and  his  wife  and  Harris.5 

April  3, 1665.  To  a  play  .  .  .  called  "Mustapha," 
which  being  not  good,  made  Betterton's  part  and 
lanthe's  but  ordinary  too.6 


Coleman,  Mrs. 

October  31, 1665.    Anon  comes  Mr§^  Coleman  with 
her  husband   .    .    .   But,  for  singing,  among  other 

3  Mrs.  Saunderson  played  the  Duchess. 

4  Betterton   played  Owen  Tudor ;   Harris,   King  Henry ;   and 
Mrs.  Betterton,  Princess  Katherine. 

5  Betterton  was  Philander ;  and  Harris,  Theocles.     Mrs.  Bet- 
terton's name  does  not  appear  in  the  cast.     (Cf.  Genest,  I,  54.) 

6  Betterton's  part  was  Solyman ;  Mrs.  Betterton's,  Roxalana. 


THE  ACTRESSES  239 

things,  we  got  Mrs.  Coleman1  to  sing  part  of  the 
Opera,  though  she  won't  owne  that  ever  she  did 
get  any  of  it  without  book  in  order  to  the  stage ;  but, 
above  all,  her  counterfeiting  of  Captain  Cooke's  part, 
in  his  reproaching  his  man  with  cowardice — "Base 
slave,"  etc. — she  do  it  most  excellently. 


Corey,  Mrs.  ("Doll  Common") 

December  27, 1666.  To  the  King's  playhouse,  and 
meeting  Creed  took  him  up,  and  there  saw  "The 
,Scornfull  Lady"  well  acted;  Doll  Common1  doing 
Abigail  most  excellently. 

January  15,  1668-69.  It  [the  stir  at  Court]  is 
about  my  Lady  Harvy's  being  offended  at  Doll 
Comman's  acting  of  Sempronia  [in  Catiline]  to 
imitate  her ;  for  which  she  got  my  Lord  Chamberlain, 
her  kinsman,  to  imprison  Doll :  when  my  Lady  Castle- 
mayne  made  the  King  to  release  her,  and  to  order  her 
to  act  it  again,  worse  than  ever,  the  other  day,  where 
the  King  himself  was:  and  since  it  was  acted  again, 

1  The  wife  of  Edward  Coleman,  the  musician.  It  has  been 
said  that  in  1656  Mrs.  Coleman  played  lanthe  in  the  first  part 
of  D'Avenant's  Siege  of  Rhodes,  in  which  she  spoke  in  recita- 
tive. If,  as  Pepys  seems  to  think,  she  did  take  part  in  the  play, 
this  was  probably  her  only  appearance  on  the  stage. 

1  Mrs.  Corey  "the  mimic,"  so  called  from  the  part  of  Doll 
Common  in  Jonson's  The  Alchemist,  which  she  acted,  was  one 
of  the  chief  actresses  of  the  King's  company,  remaining  in  it, 
according  to  Downes  (Roscius  Anglicanus,  p.  39),  as  late  as 
1682. 


240  PEPYS  ON  THE  RESTORATION  STAGE 

and  my  Lady  Harvy  provided  people  to  hiss  her  and 
fling  oranges  at  her:  but  it  seems  the  heat  is  come  to 
a  great  height,  and  real  troubles  at  Court  about  it. 


Davenport,  Francis 

April  7, 1668.  The  eldest  Davenport1  is,  it  seems, 
gone  from  this  house,  to  be  kept  by  somebody;  which 
I  am  glad  of,  she  being  a  very  bad  actor. 


Davis,  Mary 

April  17,  1666.  This  day  I  am  told  that  Moll 
Davis,1  the  pretty  girle  that  sang  and  danced  so  well 
at  the  Duke's  house,  is  dead. 

March  7,  1666-67.  Only  little  Mis.  Davis  did 
dance  a  jig  after  the  end  of  the  play  [The  English 
Princess]  and  there  telling  the  next  day's  play;  so 
that  it  come  in  by  force  only  to  please  the  company  to 

1  Not  to  be  confused  with  her  younger  sister,  Elizabeth  Daven- 
port, the  famous  "Roxalana."  Francis  seems  to  have  been 
a  minor  member  of  the  King's  company. 

1  Mary  Davis,  a  popular  actress  of  the  Duke's  company. 
Downes  (Roscius  Anglwanus,  pp.  23-24)  says  that  she  was  very 
pleasing  in  the  part  of  "Celia"  in  D'Avenant's  The  Rivals — 
"especially  in  Singing  several  Wild  and  Mad  Songs  My  Lodging 
it  is  on  the  Cold  Ground,  &c.  She  perform'd  so  Charmingly  that 
not  long  after,  it  Rais'd  her  from  her  Bed  on  the  Cold  Ground, 
to  a  Bed  Royal."  Soon  afterward  she  was  "by  force  of  Love" 
"crept  the  Stage." 


THE  ACTRESSES  241 

see  her  dance  in  boy's  clothes ;  and,  the  truth  is,  there 
is  no  comparison  between  Nell's  dancing  the  other 
day  at  the  King's  house2  in  boy's  clothes  and  this,  this 
being  infinite^  beyond  the  other. 

January  11,  1667-68.  Knepp  come  and  sat  by  us, 
and  her  talk  pleased  me  a  little,  she  telling  me  how 
Mis  Davis  is  for  certain  going  away  from  the  Duke's 
house,  the  King  being  in  love  with  her. 

January  14,  1667-68.  She  did  sit  near  the  players 
of  the  Duke's  house  [at  The  Indian  Emperor  at 
Court] ;  among  the  rest  Mis  Davis,  who  is  the  most 
impertinent  slut,  she  says,  in  the  world ;  and  the  more, 
now  the  King  do  show  her  countenance ;  and  is  reck- 
oned his  mistress,  even  to  the  scorne  of  the  whole 
world ;  the  King  gazing  on  her,  and  my  Lady  Castle- 
maine  being  melancholy  and  out  of  humour,  all  the 
play,  not  smiling  once.  The  King,  it  seems,  hath 
given  her  a  ring  of  £700,  which  she  shews  to  every 
body,  and  owns  that  the  King  did  give  it  her;  and  he 
hath  furnished  a  house  for  her  in  Suffolke  Street 
most  richly,  which  is  a  most  infinite  shame.  It  seems 
she  is  a  bastard  of  Colonell  Howard,  my  Lord  Berk- 
shire;3 .  .  .  Pierce  says  that  she  is  a  most  homely  jade 
as  ever  she  saw,  though  she  dances  beyond  any  thing 
in  the  world. 

April  7, 1668.  She  [Knepp]  tells  me  mighty  news 
that  my  Lady  Castlemayne  is  mightily  in  love  with 

2  In   The  Maiden   Queen  on   March   2,  in  which   Nell  Gwyn 
played  Florimel. 

3  Another  story  was  that  she  was  the  daughter  of  a  Wiltshire 
blacksmith.     The  truth  of  the  matter  is  not  known.    * 


242  PEPYS  ON  THE  RESTORATION  STAGE 

Hart  of  their  house:  .  .  .  and  by  this  means  she  is 
even  with  the  King's  love  to  Mrs.  Davis. 

May  31, 1668.  I  hear  that  Mrs.  Davis  is  quite  gone 
from  the  Duke  of  York's  house.  ...  At  the  play 
at  Court  the  other  night,  Mrs.  Davis  was  there;  and 
when  she  was  come  to  dance  her  jigg,4  the  Queene 
would  not  stay  to  see  it,  which  people  do  think  it  was 
out  of  displeasure  at  her  being  the  King's  whore. 

December  21,  1668.     It  vexed  me  to  see  Moll 

Davis,  in  a  box5  over  the  King's  and  my  Lady  Castle- 

\  ^^inayne's  head,  look  down  upon  the  King  and  he  up 

to  her,  and  so  did  my  Lady  Castlemayne  once,  to  see 

who  it  was,  but  when  she  saw,  she  looked  fire. 

January  21, 1668-69.  Saw  "The  Tempest,"  but  it 
is  but  ill  done  by  Gosnell,  in  lieu  of  Moll  Davis.6 

February  15, 1668-69.  Here  in  Suffolk  Street  lives 
Moll  Davis;  and  we  did  see  her  coach  come  for  her, 
a  mighty  pretty  fine  coach. 


Gosnell,  Mrs. 

A 

May  28,  1663.    Who  should  we  see  come  upon  the 
i     jstage  [in  Hamlet]  but  Gosnell,1  my  wife's  maid?  but 

4  Perhaps  as  Celania  in  The  Rivals. 

5  At  the  Duke's  theatre,  where  Macbeth  was  being  given. 

6  Probably  in  the  part  of  Miranda — the  cast  is  not  given  by 
Downes. 

1  Under  the  date  of  December  5,  1662,  Pepys  writes:  "I  find 
Gosnell  come,  who,  my  wife  tells  me,  is  likely  to  prove  a  pretty 
companion,  .  .  .  and  who  sings  exceedingly  well."  She  stayed, 
however,  only  a  few  days  in  the  Diarist's  household.  From 


THE  ACTRESSES  243 

neither  spoke,  danced  nor  sung;  which  I  was  sorry 
for.  But  she  becomes  the  stage  very  well. 

May  29, 1663.  To  the  Duke's  house,  and  there  saw 
"The  Slighted  Mayde,"  wherein  Gosnell  acted  Pyra- 
mena,  a  great  part,  and  did  it  very  well,  and  I  believe 
will  do  it  better  and  better,  and  prove  a  good  actor. 

September  10,  1664.  Gosnell  comes  and  sings  and 
dances  finely  [in  The  Rivals']  but,  for  all  that,  fell 
out  of  the  key. 

May  31, 1668.  I  hear  that  Mrs.  Davis  is  quite  gone 
from  the  Duke  of  York's  house,  and  Gosnell  comes  in 
her  room  which  I  am  glad  of. 

July  28,  1668.  To  the  Duke  of  York's  playhouse, 
and  there  saw  "The  Slighted  Maid."  .  .  .  Here  we 
saw  Gosnell,  who  is  become  very  homely,  and  sings 
meanly,  I  think,  to  what  I  thought  she  did. 

January  21,  1668-69.  Saw  "The  Tempest";  but 
it  is  but  ill  done  by  Gosnell,  in  lieu  of  Moll  Davis. 


Gwyn,  "Nell" 

April  3,  1665.  All  the  pleasure  of  the  play 
[Mustapha]  was,  the  King  and  my  Lady  Castle- 
mayne  were  there;  and  pretty  witty  Nell,1  at  the 

Pepys's  later  accounts,  "Gosnell"  would  seem  to  have  become 
one  of  the  important  actresses  at  the  Duke's  house,  in  fact, 
a  successor  to  Moll  Davis.  Wheatley  says:  "There  does  not 
appear  to  be  any  record  of  Mrs.  Gosnell  as  an  actress  outside 
the  Diary"  (Pepys's  Diary,  III,  139n). 

1  Ellen,  or  Eleanor,  Gwyn  (1650-51  to  1687),  a  much  praised 
comedienne  of  the  King's  company,  and  the  most  popular  of 


244  PEPYS  ON  THE  RESTORATION  STAGE 

King's  house,  and  the  younger  Marshall  sat  next 
us;  which  pleased  me  mightily. 

December  8,  1666.  And  the  women  do  very  well 
[in  The  English  Monsieur] ;  but,  above  all,  little 
Nelly.2 

January  23,  1666-67.  Knipp  took  us  all  in,  and 
brought  us  to  Nelly,  a  most  pretty  woman,  who  acted 
the  part  of  Coelia  [in  The  Humourous  Lieutenant} 
to-day  very  fine,  and  did  it  pretty  well:  I  kissed  her, 
and  so  did  my  wife;  and  a  mighty  pretty  soul  she  is. 

March  2,  1666-67.  To  the  King's  house  to  see 
"The  Mayden  Queene,"  a  new  play  of  Dryden's  .  .  . 
and,  the  truth  is,  there  is  a  comical  part  done  by  Nell, 
which  is  Florimell,  that  I  never  can  hope  ever  to  see 
the  like  done  again,  by  man  or  woman.  The  King 
and  Duke  of  York  were  at  the  play.  But  so  great  a 
performance  of  a  comical  part  was  never,  I  believe 
in  the  world  before  as  Nell  do  this,  both  as  a  mad 
girle,  then  most  and  best  of  all  when  she  comes  in  like 
a  young  gallant;  and  hath  the  motions  and  carriage 
of  a  spark  the  most  that  ever  I  saw  any  man  have.  It 
makes  me,  I  confess,  admire  her. 

March  7,  1666-67.  The  truth  is,  there  is  no  com- 
parison between  Nell's  dancing  the  other  day  at  the 
King's  house  in  boy's  clothes  and  this,3  this  being 
infinitely  beyond  the  other. 

Charles  the  Second's  mistresses,  made  her  first  appearance  on 
the  stage  at  about  this  time  in  the  part  of  Cydaria  in  Dryden's 
The  Indian  Emperor. 

2  She  played  Lady  Wealthy,  the  principal  woman's  part. 

3  That  is,  between  Nell  Gwyn's  dancing  in  The  Maiden  Queen 
and  Moll  Davis's  in  The  English  Princess. 


THE  ACTRESSES  245 

March  25,  1667.  So  done  by  Nell,  her  merry  part 
[Florimell],  as  cannot  be  better  done  in  nature  I 
think. 

May  1,  1667.  Saw  pretty  Nelly  standing  at  her 
lodgings'  door  in  Drury-lane  in  her  smock  sleeves 
and  bodice,  looking  upon  one:  she  seemed  a  mighty 
pretty  creature. 

May  24, 1667.  Saw  "The  Mayden  Queene,"  which, 
.  .  .  yet  pleases  me  infinitely,  it  being  impossible,  I 
think,  ever  to  have  the  Queen's  part,  which  is  very 
good  and  passionate,  and  Florimel's  part,  which  is  the 
most  comicall  that  ever  was  made  for  woman,  ever 
done  better  than  they  two  are  by  young  Marshall  and 
Nelly. 

July  13, 1667.  [Mr.  Pierce]  tells  us  what  troubles 
me,  that  my  Lord  Buckhurst  hath  got  Nell  away 
from  the  King's  house,  lies  with  her,  and  gives  her 
£100  a  year,  so  as  she  hath  sent  her  parts  to  the  house, 
and  will  act  no  more. 

July  14,  1667.  To  the  King's  Head  [Epsom], 
.  .  .  and  hear  that  my  Lord  Buckhurst  and  Nelly 
are  lodged  at  the  next  house  and  Sir  Charles  Sidly 
with  them:  and  keep  a  merry  house.  Poor  girl!  I 
pity  her;  but  more  the  loss  of  her  at  the  King's  house. 

August  1,  1667.  [Knepp]  told  us  the  story  how 
Nell  is  gone  from  the  King's  house  and  is  kept  by  my 
Lord  Buckhurst. 

August  22,  1667.  To  the  King's  playhouse,  and 
there  saw  "The  Indian  Emperour";  where  I  find  Nell 
come  again,  which  I  am  glad  of;  but  was  most  infi- 
nitely displeased  with  her  being  put  to  act  the  Em- 


246  PEPYS  ON  THE  RESTORATION  STAGE 

perour's  daughter;  which  is  a  great  and  serious  part 
which  she  do  most  basely.4 

August  26,  1667.  Sir  W.  Pen  and  I  had  a  great 
deal  of  discourse  with  Moll  ;5  who  tells  us  that  Nell  is 
already  left  by  my  Lord  Buckhurst,  and  that  he 
makes  sport  of  her ;  swears  she  hath  had  all  she  could 
get  of  him;  and  Hart,  her  great  admirer,  now  hates 
her ;  and  that  she  is  very  poor,  and  hath  lost  my  Lady 
Castlemayne,  who  was  her  great  friend  also:  but  she 
is  come  to  the  House,  but  is  neglected  by  them  all. 

October  5, 1667.  To  the  women's  shift,  where  Nell 
was  dressing  herself,  and  was  all  unready,  and  is  very 
pretty,  prettier  than  I  thought.  .  .  .  But  to  see  how 
Nell6  cursed,  for  having  so  few  people  in  the  pit,  was 
pretty. 

October  26,  1667.  Mrs.  Pierce  tells  me  ...  that 
Nelly  and  Beck  Marshall,  falling  out  the  other  day, 
the  latter  called  the  other  my  Lord  Buckhurst's 
whore.  Nell  answered  then,  "I  was  but  one  man's 
whore,  though  I  was  brought  up  in  a  bawdy-house 

4  Successful  as  she  was  in  light  comedy,  it  seems  to  be  the 
general  opinion — in  which  Nell  herself  shared — that  she  was  a 
failure  in  "serious  parts";  witness  the  lines  in  the  epilogue  to 
The  Duke  of  Lerma,  which  she  spoke, 

.    .    .  "I  know  you  in  your  hearts, 

Hate  serious  plays, — as  I  hate  serious  parts"; 

and  also  the  following  from  the  epilogue  to  Dryden's  Tyrannic 
Love, 

"...  I  die 
Out  of  my  calling  in  a  tragedy." 

5  "Orange  Moll/'  head  orange-woman  at  the  King's  theatre. 

6  She  had  acted  Flora  in  Flora's  Vagaries. 


THE  ACTRESSES  247 

to  fill  strong  waters  to  the  guests ;  and  you  are  a  whore 
to  three  or  four,  though  a  Presbyter's  praying  daugh- 
ter!" which  was  very  pretty. 

November  11,  1667.  Above  all  things  Nell's  ill 
speaking  of  a  great  part  [in  The  Indian  Emperor] 
made  me  mad. 

December  26,  1667.  The  actors  not  pleasing  me 
[in  The  Surprised] ;  and  especially  Nell's  acting  of 
a  serious  part,7  which  she  spoils. 

December  28, 1667.  Nell's  and  Hart's  mad  parts8 
[in  The  Mad  Couple]  are  most  excellently  done,  but 
especially  her's:  which  makes  it  a  miracle  to  me  to 
think  how  ill  she  do  any  serious  part,  as,  the  other 
day,  just  like  a  fool  or  changeling;  and,  in  a  mad  part, 
do  beyond  all  imitation  almost. 

January  11, 1667-68.  [Knepp  says]  that  the  King 
did  send  several  times  for  Nelly,  and  she  was  with 
him,  but  what  he  did  she  knows  not ;  this  was  a  good 
while  ago  .  .  .  and  I  am  sorry  for  it,  and  can  hope 
for  no  good  to  the  State  from  having  a  Prince  so 
devoted  to  his  pleasure. 

February  20, 1667-68.  Knepp  and  Nell  spoke  the 
prologue  [in  The  Duke  of  Lerma]  most  excellently. 

May  7,  1668.  I  did  see  ...  Nell,  in  her  boy's 
clothes,  mighty  pretty.  But  Lord!  their  confidence! 
and  how  many  men  do  hover  about  them  as  soon  as 
they  come  off  the  stage,  and  how  confident  they  are  in 
their  talk!9 

7  Samira. 

8  Mirida  was  Nell's  "mad  part." 

9  This  was  in  the  greenroom  of  the  King's  theatre,  after  a 
performance  of  The  Man's  Master. 


248  PEPYS  ON  THE  RESTORATION  STAGE 

January  7,  1668-69.  We  sat  in  an  upper  box  [at 
The  Island  Princess],  and  the  jade  Nell10  come  and 
sat  in  the  next  box ;  a  bold  merry  slut,  who  lay  laugh- 
ing there  upon  people;  and  with  a  comrade  of  hers 
of  the  Duke's  house,  that  come  in  to  see  the  play. 


Knepp,  M 


V 


December  6,  1665.  Here  the  best  company  for 
musique  I  ever  was  in,  in  my  life,  .  .  .  Mrs.  Pierce, 
and  my  wife  and  Knipp,1  who  is  pretty  enough;  but 
the  most  excellent  mad-humoured  thing,  and  sings  the 
noblest  that  ever  I  heard  in  my  life. 

December  8,  1665.  By  water  down  to  Greenwich, 
and  there  found  all  my  company  come;  that  is,  Mrs. 
Knipp,  and  an  ill,  melancholy,  jealous-looking  fel- 
low, her  husband,  that  spoke  not  a  word  to  us  all  the 
night.  .  .  .  Most  excellent  musique  we  had  in  abund- 
ance, and  a  good  supper,  dancing,  and  a  pleasant 
scene  of  Mrs.  Knipp's  rising  sicke  from  table,  but 
whispered  me  it  was  for  some  hard  word  or  other  her 
husband  gave  her  just  now  when  she  laughed  and 
was  more  merry  than  ordinary.  But  we  got  her  in 

10  Nell  left  the  stage  soon  after  this,  in  1670,  her  last  part 
being  Almahide  in  Dryden's  The  Conquest  of  Granada.  Her 
son  Charles,  afterward  made  Duke  of  St.  Albans,  was  born  in 
May  of  this  year. 

1  Mrs.  Knepp  (or  Knipp)  "probably  made  her  debut  on  the 
stage  of  the  Theatre  Royal  as  Epicene  in  Ben  Jonson's  'Silent 
Woman'  on  1  June,  1664"  (Dictionary  of  National  Biography, 
XXXI,  273).  She  disappears  from  the  stage  in  1678,  and  noth- 
ing is  known  of  her  subsequent  history. 


THE  ACTRESSES  249 

humour  again,  and  mighty  merry;  spending  the  night, 
till  two  in  the  morning,  with  most  complete  content 
as  ever  in  my  life.2 

February  23,  1665-66.  She  [Knepp]  also  enter- 
tained me  with  repeating  many  of  her  own  and  others' 
parts  of  the  play-house,  which  she  do  most  excel- 
lently; and  tells  me  the  whole  practices  of  the  play- 
house and  players. 

December  27,  1666.  Saw  "The  Scornfull  Lady" 
well  acted;  [Knipp]  doing  .  .  .  the  widow  very  well, 
and  will  be  an  excellent  actor,  I  think/ 

January  2,  1666-67.  Saw  "The  Custome  of  the 
Country"  .  .  .  wherein  Knipp  does  the  Widow  well ; 
.  .  .  sings  a  little  song  admirably. 

January  15,  1666-67.  To  a  play  .  .  .  where 
Knipp  acts  Mrs.  Weaver's  great  part  in  "The  Indian 
Emperour,"  and  he  [Lord  Brouncker]  says  is  coming 
on  to  be  a  great  actor. 

January  23,  1666-67.  Saw  "The  Humerous  Lieu- 
tenant": .  .  .  and  then  Knipp's  singing  did  please  us. 

January  24,  1666-67.  Comes  Mr.  Harris  of  the 
Duke's  playhouse,  and  brings  Mrs.  Pierce  with  him 
and  also  one  dressed  like  a  country  mayde  with  a 
straw  hat  on;  which,  at  first,  I  could  not  tell  who 
it  was,  though  I  expected  Knipp :  but  it  was  she  com- 
ing off  the  stage  just  as  she  acted  this  day  in  "The 
Goblins";  ajnerrv  jade. 

February  5, 1666-67.    A  good  play  [The  Chances] 

2  The  Diary  abounds  in  accounts  of  similar  social  gatherings, 
to  which  Mrs.  Knepp  was  party,  and  also  in  brief  references  to 
her  private  life,  which  will  not  be  quoted  except  where  they  bear 
upon  stage  history. 


250  PEPYS  ON  THE  RESTORATION  STAGE 

I  find  it,  and  the  actors  most  good  in  it ;  and  pretty  to 
hear  Knipp  sing  in  the  play  very  properly,  "All  night 
I  weepe";  and  sung  it  admirably. 

February  12,  1666-67.  [T.  Killigrew]  says  that 
Knipp  is  like  to  make  the  best  actor  that  ever  come 
upon  the  stage,  she  understanding  so  well:  that  they 
are  going  to  give  her  £30  a  year  more. 

May  22, 1667.  Saw  the  last  two  acts  of  "The  Gob- 
lins," .  .  .  but  here3  Knipp  spied  me  out  of  the  tiring- 
room,  and  come  to  the  pit  door. 

August  1,  1667.  To  see  "The  Custome  of  the 
Country."  .  .  .  After  the  play,  we  went  into  the 
house  and  spoke  with  Knepp. 

August  17,  1667.  I  was  pleased  to  see  Knipp 
dance  [in  Queen  Elizabeth's  Troubles']  among  the 
milkmaids  and  to  hear  her  sing  a  song  to  Queen  Eliza- 
beth ;  and  to  see  her  come  out  in  her  night-go wne  with 
no  lockes  on,  but  her  bare  face  and  hair  only  tied  up 
in  a  knot  behind. 

August  22,  1667.  Saw  "The  Indian  Emperour." 
.  .  .  Knipp  sent  by  Moll  to  desire  to  speak  to  me 
after  the  play;  and  she  beckoned  to  me  at  the  end  of 
the  play. 

September  9,  1667.  [T.  Killigrew]  says  that 
Knepp  wont  take  pains  enough,  but  that  she  under- 
stands her  part  so  well  upon  the  stage  that  no  man  or 
woman  in  the  house  do  the  like. 

September  14,  1667.  Knipp  acted  in  it  [The 
Northern  Castle],  and  did  her  part  very  extraordi- 
nary well. 

3  At  the  King's  theatre. 


THE  ACTRESSES  251 

October  5,  1667.  Met  with  Knepp  and  she  took 
us  up  into  the  tireing-rooms  [at  the  King's  theatre] : 
.  .  .  here  I  read  the  questions  to  Knepp,  while  she 
answered  me,  through  all  her  part4  of  "Flora's 
Figarys"  which  was  acted  to-day.  .  .  .  But,  Lord! 
to  see  how  they  were  both  painted.5 

February  20, 1667-68.  Knepp  and  Nell  spoke  the 
prologue  most  excellent^,  especially  Knepp  [in  The 
Duke  of  Lerma]  who  spoke  beyond  any  creature  I 
ever  heard. 

March  25, 1668.  Knepp  did  act  her  part  of  grief6 
very  well. 

April  7,  1668.  Saw  "The  English  Monsieur"; 
.  .  .  the  play  done,  I  down  to  Knipp,  and  did  stay 
her  undressing. 

April  17, 1668.  Saw  "The  Surprizall,"  where  base 
singing,  only  Knepp,  who  come,  after  her  song  in  the 
clouds,  to  me  in  the  pit. 

May  6, 1668.  Saw  "The  Virgin  Martyr,"  ...  and 
intended  to  have  seen  Knepp,  but  I  let  her  alone. 

May  16, 1668.  Saw  the  best  of  "The  Sea  Voyage," 
where  Knepp  I  see  do  act  her  part  of  sorrow  very 
well. 

June  3,  1668.  Saw  good  part  of  "The  Scornfull 
Lady,"  and  that  done,  would  have  taken  Knepp  out, 
but  she  was  engaged. 

September  18,  1668.  Saw  a  piece  of  "Henry  the 
Fourth" ;  at  the  end  of  the  play,  thinking  to  have  gone 


4  Otrante. 

5  Mrs.  Knepp  and  Nell  Gwyn. 

6  Aminta  in  The  Storm. 


252  PEPYS  ON  THE  RESTORATION  STAGE 

abroad  with  Knepp,  but  it  was  too  late,  and  she  to  get 
her  part  against  to-morrow,  in  "The  Silent  Woman."7 

September  19,  1668.  Saw  "The  Silent  Woman." 
.  .  .  Knepp  did  her  part  mighty  well. 

January  1, 1668-69.  Saw  "The  Mayden  Queene." 
Knepp8  looked  upon  us. 

February  2,  1668-69.  "The  Heyresse"  ...  is 
acted.  .  .  .  But  that,  that  pleased  me  most  in  the 
play  is,  the  first  song  that  Knepp  sings,  she  singing 
three  or  four;  and,  indeed,  it  was  very  finely  sung,  so 
as  to  make  the  whole  house  clap  her. 


Marshall,  Anne 

February  12,  1660-61.  To  the  Theatre  and  there 
saw  "The  Scornfull  Lady,"1  now  done  by  a  woman, 
which  makes  the  play  appear  much  better  than  ever 
it  did  to  me. 

February  1,  1663-64.    The  eldest  Marshall2  did  do 

7  Epicoene. 

8  In  this  play  Mrs.  Knepp  played  the  part  of  Asteria. 

1  Downes  (Roscius  Anglicanus,  p.  6)  mentions  in  the  cast  for 
this  play  a  "Mrs.  Marshal"  as  having  acted  "the  Lady";  this 
may  have  been  for  a  later  performance. 

2  Anne  Marshall  was,  according  to  Genest  (I,  379),  "for  many 
years  the  principal  actress  in  the  King's   company,"   and  was 
probably  the  more  gifted  of  the  two  sisters,  generally  reported 
to  have  been  the  daughters  of  Stephen   Marshall,   an  eminent 
Presbyterian  minister.     In  regard  to  this  story,  Wheatley  says 
(Pepys's   Diary,  IV,   28  n.) :   "Colonel   Chester   proved  conclu- 
sively that  this  was  not  the  case."    Anne  Marshall's  part  in  this 
play  was  Zemboalla,  the  Queen.     Downes  does  not  usually  dis- 


THE  ACTRESSES  253 

her  part  [in  The  Indian  Queen]  most  excellently  well 
as  I  ever  heard  woman  in  my  life;  but  her  voice  not 
stf  sweet  as  lanthe's. 

October  26,  1667.  Mrs.  Pierce  tells  me  that  the 
'two  Marshalls  at  the  King's  house  are  Stephen  Mar- 
shall's, the  great  Presbyterian's  daughters. 

June  27,  1668.  To  the  King's  playhouse,  and  saw 
"The  Indian  Queene,"  but  do  not  doat  upon  Nan 
Marshall's  acting  therein,  as  the  world  talks  of  her 
excellence  therein. 


Marshall,  Rebecca 

April  3,  1665.  Pretty  witty  Nell,  at  the  King's 
house,  and  the  younger  Marshall1  sat  next  us ;  which 
pleased  me  mightily. 

December  7,  1666.  Saw  the  remainder  of  "The 
Maid's  Tragedy" ;  a  good  play,  and  well  acted  espe- 
cially by  the  younger  Marshall,2  who  is  become  a 
pretty  good  actor. 

May  24,1667.  Saw  "The  May  den  Queene,"  which, 
though  I  have  often  seen  yet  pleases  me  infinitely,  it 

tinguish  between  the  two  sisters,  and  it  is  evident  from  Pepys 
that  several  of  the  roles  ascribed  by  Genest  (I,  pp.  379-380)  to 
the  elder  were  created  by  the  younger  Marshall. 

1  Rebecca  Marshall,  younger  sister  of  Anne,  wrongly  said  to 
have  been  the  daughter  of  Stephen  Marshall,  the  Presbyterian 
minister ;  she  was  one  of  the  most  popular  actresses  of  the  King's 
company.    This  was  at  a  performance  of  Mustapha  at  the  Duke's 
theatre. 

2  In  the  part  of  Evadne. 


254  PEPYS  ON  THE  RESTORATION  STAGE 

being  impossible,  I  think,  ever  to  have  the  Queen's 
part  which  is  very  good  and  passionate,  'and  Flori- 
mel's  part,  which  is  the  most  comicall  that  ever  was 
made  for  woman,  ever  done  better  than  they  two  are 
by  young  Marshall  and  Nelly. 

August  24,  1667.  Saw  "The  Cardinall"  at  the 
King's  house,  wherewith  I  am  mightily  pleased;  but, 
above  all,  with  Becke  Marshall.3 

September  11,  1667.  Sat  by  Becke  Marshall  [at 
the  Duke's  theatre],  who  is  very  handsome  near  hand. 

October  26,  1667.  Mrs.  Pierce  tells  me  that  the 
two  Marshalls  at  the  King's  house  are  Stephen  Mar- 
shall's, the  great  Presbyterian's  daughters:4  and  that 
Nelly  and  Beck  Marshall,  falling  out  the  other  day, 
the  latter  called  the  other  my  Lord  Buckhurst's 
whore.  Nell  answered  then,  "I  was  but  one  man's 
whore,  though  I  was  brought  up  in  a  bawdy-house  to 
fill  strong  waters  to  the  guests ;  and  you  are  a  whore 
to  three  or  four,  though  a  Presbyter's  praying  daugh- 
ter!" 

January  24,  1667-68.  [The  Maiden  Queen]  is 
certainly  the  best  acted  of  anything  ever  the  House 
did,  and  particularly  Becke  Marshall,5  to  admiration. 

February  27,  1667-68.  It  [The  Virgin  Martyr] 
is  finely  acted  by  Becke  Marshall.6 

3  Probably  as  the  Duchess  Rosaura. 

4  See  p.  252,  n.  2. 

5  As  the  Queen  of  Sicily. 

6  Genest  (I,  80)  says:  "No  doubt  she  acted  the  Virgin  Martyr" 
— that  is,  St.  Dorothea. 


THE  ACTRESSES  255 

Norton,  Mrs. 

December  1,  1662\  To  the  Cockpitt,  with  much 
crowding  and  waiting  where  I  saw  "The  Valiant 
Cidd,"  .  .  .  there  being  no  pleasure  in  it  though  done 
by  Betterton  and  lanthe,  and  another  fine  wench 
that  is  come  in  the  room  of  Roxalana.1 

December  27 3  1662.  To  the  Duke's  Theatre,  and 
saw  the  second  part  of  "Rhodes,"  done  with  the  new 
Roxalana;  which  do  it  rather  better  in  all  respects 
for  person,  voice,  and  judgment,  than  the  first  Roxa- 
lana. 

July  2,  1666.  Called  by  Pegg  Pen  to  her  house, 
where  .  .  .  Mrs.  Norton,  the  second  Roxalana,  a  fine 
woman,  indifferent  handsome,  good  body  and  hand, 
and  good  mine,  and  pretends  to  sing,  but  do  it  not 
excellently. 


"Roxalana"   (Elizabeth  Davenport) 

February  18,  1661-62.  A  good  play  and  well  per- 
formed [The  Law  against  Lovers],  especially  the 
little  girl's  (whom  I  never  saw  before)  dancing  and 
singing ;  and  were  it  not  for  her  the  loss  of  Roxalana1 
would  spoil  the  house. 

1  Mrs.  Norton  was  probably  one  of  the  lesser  actresses  of  the 
Duke's  company;  her  name  rarely  appears  in  Downes's  casts. 

1  Elizabeth  Davenport  (1642-?)  one  of  the  principal  actresses 
of  the  Duke's  company,  was  so  called  from  the  part  she  created 
in  The  Siege  of  Rhodes. 


256  PEPYS  ON  THE  RESTORATION  STAGE 

April  2,  1662.  Saw  "The  Bondman"  most  excel- 
lently acted ;  and  though  we  had  seen  it  so  often,  yet  I 
never  liked  it  better  than  to-day,  lanthe2  acting 
Cleora's  part  very  well  now  Roxalana  is  gone. 

May  20, 1662.  Saw  the  2nd  part  of  "The  Siege  of 
Rhodes,"  but  it  is  not  so  well  done  as  when  Roxalana 
was  there,  who  it  is  said,  is  now  owned  by  my  Lord 
of  Oxford.3 

December  1, 1662.  Saw  "The  Valiant  Cidd,"  .  .  . 
done  by  Betterton  and  lanthe,  and  another  fine  wench 
that  is  come  in  the  room  of  Roxalana. 

December  27,  1662.  Saw  the  second  part  of 
"Rhodes,"  done  with  the  new  Roxalana;  which  do  it 
rather  better  in  all  respects  for  person,  voice,  and 
judgment,  than  the  first  Roxalana. 

January  13 1662-63.  Here  [at  the  Duke's  theatre] 
we  saw  the  old  Roxalana  in  the  chief  box,  in  a  velvet 
gown,  as  the  fashion  is,  and  very  handsome,  at  which 
I  was  glad. 

2  Mrs.  Betterton. 

, 3  The  story  is  told  in  the  Memoirs  of  the  Count  de  Gramont 
(Vizetelly  ed.,  II,  101).  Evelyn  refers  to  it  in  the  following 
entry  for  January  9,  1661-62:  "I  saw  acted  'The  Third  [sic] 
Part  of  the  Siege  of  Rhodes.'  In  this  acted  ye  faire  and  famous 
comedian  call'd  Roxalana  from  ye  part  she  perform'd,  and  I 
think  it  was  the  last,  she  being  taken  to  be  the  Earle  of  Oxford's 
Misse  (as  at  this  time  they  began  to  call  lewd  women)"  (Diary, 
Wheatley  ed.,  II,  141).  This  actress,  whom  Gramont  called 
"very  virtuous  and  very  modest,"  left  the  stage  soon  afterwards 
— as  Pepys's  reference  of  February  18,  1661-62,  attests — to  be 
enticed  into  a  mock  marriage  with  Aubrey  de  Vere,  Earl  of 
Oxford. 


THE  ACTRESSES  257 

Weaver,  Mrs. 

January  15,  1666-67.  My  Lord  Bruncker  would 
have  made  me  promise  to  go  with  him  to  a  play  this 
afternoon,  where  Knipp  acts  Mrs.  Weaver's1  great 
part  in  "The  Indian  Emperour." 

January  11,  1667-68.  She  [Knepp]  says  that  the 
King  first  spoiled  Mrs.  Weaver,  which  is  very  mean, 
methinks,  in  a  prince,  and  I  am  sorry  for  it. 

General  References  to  Women  on  the  Stage 

January  3,  1660-61.  Here  the  first  time  that  ever 
I  saw  women  come  upon  the  stage.1 

January  83  1660-61.  To  ...  "The  Widdow"  an 
indifferent  good  play,  but  wronged  by  the  women 
being  to  seek  in  their  parts. 

1  Mrs.  Weaver  was  evidently  one  of  the  lesser  actresses  of 
the  King's  company. 

1  In  The  Beggar's  Bush  at  the  King's  theatre,  Vere  Street. 
This  was  not  the  first  time  that  actresses  had  appeared  on  the 
English  stage.  In  1629  a  French  company  in  which  there  were 
women  (denounced  as  "monsters"  by  Prynne  in  his  Histrio- 
mastrix,  1633),  played  at  Blackfriars,  the  Red  Bull,  and  the 
Fortune  theatres;  and  before  the  Restoration  a  few  English 
women  are  mentioned  as  having  acted.  Lady  Strangelove  in 
R.  Brome's  Court  Beggar  (1632),  Act  V,  Sc.  2,  says:  "Women- 
Actors  now  grow  in  request."  In  1656  Mrs.  Coleman,  wife  of 
Edward  Coleman,  was  lanthe  in  D'Avenant's  Siege  of  Rhodes; 
and  on  November  5,  1660,  in  his  Articles  of  Agreement  with 
the  actors  of  his  company,  D'Avenant  had  definitely  arranged 
for  the  maintenance  of  actresses  at  his  theatre.  But  Killigrew 
seems  to  have  anticipated  him  in  bringing  professional  actresses 
on  the  stage.  The  woman  who  played  the  part  of  Desdemona 
with  Killigrew's  company,  December  8,  1660,  has  been  called, 


258  PEPYS  ON  THE  RESTORATION  STAGE 

February  12,  1660-61.  Saw  "The  Scornful!  Lady" 
now  'done  by  a  woman  which  makes  the  play  appear 
much  better  than  ever  it  did  to  me.2 

'October  28,  1661.  To  the  Theatre  .  .  .  where  a 
woman3  acted  Parthenia,  and  came  afterwards  on  the 
stage  in  men's  clothes,  and  had  the  best  legs  that  ever 


..  October  4,  1664.  To-morrow  they  told  us  should 
be  acted,  or  the  day  after,  a  new  play,  called  "The 
Parson's  Dreame"  acted  all  by  women.4 
'  October  11,  1664.  He  [Luellin]  tells  me  what  a 
bawdy  loose  play  this  "Parson's  Wedding"  is,  that  is 
acted  by  nothing  but  women  at  the  King's  house,  and 
I  am  glad  of  it. 

the  "first  English  actress."  Her  name  remains  unknown,  though 
the  quaint  "Prologue  to  introduce  the  first  woman  that  came  to 
act  on  the  stage"  has  been  preserved.  The  speaker  thus  pre- 
pares the  audience: 

"I  come  unknown  to  any  of  the  rest, 
To  tell  you  news  ;  I  saw  the  lady  drest  ; 
The  woman  plays  to-day:  mistake  me  not 
No  man  in  gown,  or  page  in  petticoat.  ..." 
(Cf.  Malone's  Shakspeare,  1821  ed.,  Ill,  128.) 

It  was  therefore  only  about  a  month  after  their  formal  intro- 
duction that  Pepys  records  seeing  women  on  the  stage. 

2  Downes  states  (Roscius  Anglicanus,  p.  6)  that  the  following 
women  appeared  in  this  play,  probably  at  a  later  date:   Mrs. 
[Anne]  Marshall  ("The  Lady"),  Mrs.  Rutter  ("Martha"),  and 
Mrs.  Corey  ("Abigail").    This  performance  was  at  the  Salisbury 
Court  theatre. 

3  It  is  not  known  what  women  acted  in  Ar  gains  and  Parthenia. 

4  This  was,  of  course,  done  to  heighten  the  effect  of  grossness 
and  obscenity,  which  in  this  comedy  certainly  needed  no  empha- 
sis.    The  practice  of  having  plays  entirely  acted  by  women  is 


THE  ACTRESSES  259 

0 

October  5,  1667.  To  the  King's  house,  and  there, 
going  in,  met  with  Knepp,  and  she  took  us  up  into 
the  tireing-rooms  :5  and  to  the  women's  shift,  where 
Nell  was  dressing  herself.  .  .  .  And  so  walked  all  up 
and  down  the  house  above,  and  then  below  into  the 
scene-room,  and  there  sat  down,  and  she  gave  us 
fruit.  .  .  .  But,  Lord!  to  see  how  they  were  both 
painted  would  make  a  man  mad,  and  did  make  me 
loath  them;  and  what  base  company  of  men  comes 
among  them,  and  how  lewdly  they  talk!  .  .  .  But  to 
see  how  Nell  cursed,  for  having  so  few  people  in  the 
pit,  was  pretty ;  the  other  house  carrying  away  all  the 
people  at  the  new  play  [The  Coffee  House]  and  is 
said  now-a-days,  to  have  generally  most  company,  as 
being  better  players.  By  and  by  into  the  pit. 

September  28,  1668.  Knepp's  maid  comes  to  me, 
to  tell  me  that  the  women's  day  at  the  playhouse  is 
to-day.  .  .  .  There  saw  "The  City  Match." 

thus  defended  in  an  epilogue  to  Dryden's  Secret  Love,  tfr  The 

Maiden  Queen,  spoken  by  "Mrs.  Reeve  in  man's  clothes":. 

f 

"What  think  you,  sirs,  was't  not  all  well  enough? 
Will  you  not  grant  that  we  can  strutt  and  huff? 
Why  should  not  then  we  women  act  alone? 
Or  whence  are  men  so  necessary  grown  ?'\ 

(Cf.  The  Works  of  John  Dryden,  Scott-Saintsbury  ed.,  II,  510.) 
5  In  April,  1667,  as  a  result  of  a  quarrel  between  Rebecca 
Marshall  and  Sir  Hugh  Middleton  described  by  Dr.  Doran  in 
his  Annals  of  the  English  Stage  (Lowe's  ed.,  I,  262-263),  "A 
royal  decree  was  issued,"  which  prohibited  gentlemen  from 
entering  the  "tiring  rooms  of  the  ladies  of  the  King's  theatre" — 
to  what  avail  may  be  judged  from. this  entry  for  October  of  the 
same  year ! 


CHAPTER  IX 
THE   PLAYWRIGHTS 


CHAPTER  IX 
THE  PLAYWRIGHTS 

Brome,  Alexander 

April  10,  1663.  To  the  Royall  Oak  Tavern  in 
Lumbard  Street,  where  Alexander  Broome1  the  poet 
was,  a  merry  and  witty  man,  I  believe  if  he  be  not  a 
little  conceited. 

July  3,  1666.  Alexander  Broome,  the  great  song- 
maker  is  lately  dead. 


Cowley,  Abraham       f^*** 

November  18,  1663.  Walked  home  again  reading 
of  a  little  book  of  new  poems  of  Cowley's,1  given  me 
by  his  brother.  Abraham  do  lie,  it  seems,  very  sicke 
still,  but  like  to  recover. 

August  10,  1667.  Cowley,  he  [Herringman]  tells 
me,  is  dead,2  who,  it  seems,  was  a  mighty  civil,  serious 
man ;  which  I  did  not  know  before. 

1  Alexander  Brome  (1620-1666)  was  the  author  of  one  play, 
The  Cunning  Lovers  (1639),  besides  many  songs  and  epigrams. 

1  Abraham  Cowley  (1618-1667),  the  poet,  was  the  author  of 
Cutter  of  Coleman  Street,  and  several  minor  plays. 

2  Compare  Evelyn's  entry  for  August  1,  1667:  "I  receiv'd  the 
sad  newes  of  Abraham  Cowley's  death,  that  incomparable  poet 


264  PEPYS  ON  THE  RESTORATION  STAGE 

August  12,  1667.  Do  hear  Mr.  Cowley  mightily 
lamented  his  death,  by  Dr.  Ward,  the  Bishop  of 
Winchester,  and  Dr.  Bates,  who  were  standing  there 
[at  Herringman's]  as  the  best  poet  of  our  nation, 
and  as  a  good  man.  v 


D'Avenant,  Sir  William 

July  22, 1663.  At  Wotton's,  the  shoemaker's,  who 
tells  me  the  reason  of  Harris's  going  from  Sir  Wm. 
Davenant's1  house,  that  he  grew  very  proud  and 
demanded  £20  for  himself  extraordinary,  .  .  .  upon 
every  new  play  and  <£lO  upon  every  revive;  which 
with  other  things  Sir  W.  Davenant  would  not  give 
him,  and  so  he  swore  he  would  never  act  there  more, 
in  expectation  of  being  received  at  the  other  House; 
but  the  King  will  not  suffer  it,  upon  Sir  W.  Dave- 
nant's desire  that  he  would  not,  for  then  he  might 
shut  up  house,  and  that  is  true. 

and  virtuous  man,  my  very  deare  friend,  and  was  greately  de- 
plored" (Diary,  Wheatley  ed.,  II,  222).  Evelyn  further  records 
that  on  August  3,  he  "went  to  Mr.  Cowley's  funerall,  whose 
corps  lay  at  Wallingford  House,  and  was  there  conveyed  to 
Westminster  Abbey  in  a  hearse  with  6  horses  and  all  funeral 
decency,  neere  an  hundred  coaches  of  noblemen  and  persons  of 
qualitie  following;  among  these  all  the  witts  of  the  towne,  divers 
bishops  and  cleargymen.  He  was  interr'd  next  Geoffry  Chaucer 
and  neere  to  Spenser"  (Ibid.). 

1  Sir  William  D'Avenant  (1605-1668),  poet,  dramatist,  and 
patentee  of  the  Duke  of  York's  company  after  1660,  had  paved 
the  way  for  the  reinstatement  of  the  theatre  towards  the  close 
of  the  Interregnum  by  operatic  productions  as  early  as  1656. 


THE  PLAYWRIGHTS  265 

\       • 

February  13,  1666-67.  Captain  Cooke,2  had  the 
arrogance  to  say  that  he  was  fain  to  direct  Sir  W. 
Davenant  in  the  breaking  of  his  verses  into  such  and 
such  lengths,  according  as  would  be  fit  for  musick, 
and  how  he  used  to  swear  at  Davenant,  and  command 
him  that  way,  when  W.  Davenant  would  be  angry, 

<and  find  fault  with  this  or  that  note — but  a  vain 
coxcomb  I  perceive  he  is. 

.  April  7, 1668.    Here  I  hear  that  Sir  W.  Davenant 
is  just  now  dead;3  and  so  who  will  succeed  him  in  the 

^mastership  of  the  house  is  not  yet  known. 

April  9f  1668.     Up  and  down  to  the  Duke  of 

y  York's  playhouse,4  there  to  see,  which  I  did,  Sir  W. 
Davenant's  corpse  carried  out  towards  Westminster, 
there  to  be  buried. 


Dryden,  John 

February  3, 1663-64.    In  Covent  Garden  to-night, 
...    I  stopped  at  the  great  Coffee-house1  there, 

2  Henry  Cooke,  a  well-known  musician  and  composer,  made 
Master   of  the   Children   of  the   Chapel   Royal.      He   probably 
refers  to  D'Avenant's  "opera/'  The  Siege  of  Rhodes. 

3  Sir  William  D'Avenant  was  "Bury'd,"  according  to  Downes 
(Roscius  Anglicanus,  p.  30),  "in  Westminster- Abbey,  near  Mr. 
Chaucer's     Monument,     Our     whole     Company     attending     his 
Funeral."     Pepys  heard  the  news  at  the  King's  theatre,  where 
The  English  Monsieur  had  been  played. 

4  D'Avenant's  house  adjoined  the  theatre. 

1  "The  Rose,"  afterwards  "Will's"  at  the  corner  of  Bow  and 
Russell  streets. 


266  PEPYS  ON  THE  RESTORATION  STAGE 

where  I  never  was  before;  where  Dryden2  the  poet 
(I  knew  at  Cambridge) ,  and  all  the  wits  of  the  town, 
.  .  .  there,  I  perceive,  is  very  witty  and  pleasant  dis- 
course. 

February  2,  1666-67.  I  am  very  well  pleased  this 
night  with  reading  a  poem3  I  brought  home  with  me 
last  night  from  Westminster  Hall,  of  Dryden's  upon 
the  present  war;  a  very  good  poem. 

July  29,  1667.  Tom  Porter  went  out,  and  meeting 
Dryden  the  poet,  told  him  of  the  business,*  .  .  .  and 
desired  Dryden  to  let  him  have  his  boy  to  bring  him 
notice  which  way  Sir  H.  Bellasses  goes. 

September  20,  1668.  Having  since  church  heard 
the  boy  read  over  Dryden's  Reply  to  Sir  R.  Howard's 
Answer,5  about  his  Essay  of  Poesy,  and  a  letter6  in 
answer  to  that;  the  last  whereof  is  mighty  silly,  in 
behalf  of  Howard. 

2  John  Dryden   (1631-1700),  poet  and  critic  and  dramatist, 
took  his  B.  A.  degree  at  Trinity  College,  Cambridge,  in  1654. 

3  Annus  Mirabilis;  the  Year  of  Wonders,  1666,  an  Historical 
Poem. 

4  His  impending  duel  with  H.  Bellasses. 

5  Dryden's  reply  to  "Sir  R.  Howard's  Answer"   (the  preface 
to  The  Duke  of  Lerma)  was  a  Defence  of  an  Essay  of  Dramatic 
Poesy  (1668). 

6  For  a   discussion   of  the  letter   probably   referred  to  here, 
printed  by  Thomas  Newcomb,  1668,  and  signed  R.  F.  (Richard 
Flecknoe    (?)),   see   an   article   by   Peter   Cunningham   in    The 
Gentleman's  Magazine  for  December,   1850,  Vol.  XXXIV,  pp. 
597-599. 


THE  PLAYWRIGHTS  267 

Howard,  Edward 

April  20,  1667.  [Mr.  Rolt  tells  me]  that  Lacy 
had  been  committed  to  the  porter's  lodge  for  his 
acting  his  part  in  the  late  new  play,  and  that  being 
thence  released  he  come  to  the  King's  house,  there 
met  with  Ned  Howard,1  the  poet  of  the  play,2  who 
congratulated  his  release;  upon  which  Lacy  cursed 
him  as  that  it  was  the  fault  of  his  nonsensical  play 
that  was  the  cause  of  his  ill  usage.  Mr.  Howard  did 
give  him  some  reply;  to  which  Lacy  [answered]  him, 
that  he  was  more  a  fool  than  a  poet,  upon  which 
Howard  did  give  him  a  blow  on  the  face  with  his 
glove;  on  which  Lacy,  having  a  cane  in  his  hand,  did 
give  him  a  blow  over  the  pate.  Here  Rolt  and  others 
that  discoursed  of  it  in  the  pit  this  afternoon  did 
wonder  that  Howard  did  not  run  him  through,  he 
being  too  mean  a  fellow  to  fight  with.  But  Howard 
did  not  do  anything  but  complain  to  the  King  of  it; 
so  the  whole  house  is  silenced,  and  the  gentry  seem  to 
rejoice  much  at  it,  the  house  being  become  too 
'  insolent. 

1  Edward    Howard    (1624?-1669?),    brother    of    Sir    Robert 
Howard,  was  the  author  of  several  plays.     "Lacy's  opinion  of 
his  abilities  was  shared  by  many  of  his  contemporaries,"  says 
Wheatley  (Pepys's  Diary,  VI,  258  n). 

2  The  Change  of  Crowns. 


268     PEPYS  ON  THE  RESTORATION  STAGE 
Howard,  Sir  Robert 

December  8,  1666.  Sir  Robert  Howard,1  who  is 
one  of  the  King's  servants,  at  least  hath  a  great  office, 
and  hath  got,  they  say,  £20,000  since  the  King  come 
in. 

May  5,  1668.  By  Sir  Positive  At-all,  I  under- 
stand, is  meant  Sir  Robert  Howard.2 

May  8,  1668.  But,  Lord!  to  see  how  this  play  of 
Sir  Positive  At-all  in  abuse  of  Sir  Robert  Howard, 
do  take,  all  the  Duke's  and  every  body's  talk  being  of 
that,  and  telling  more  stories  of  him,  of  the  like 
nature,  that  it  is  now  the  town  and  country  talk,  and, 
they  say,  is  most  exactly  true.  The  Duke  of  York 
himself  said  that  of  his  playing  at  trap-ball  is 
true,  and  told  several  other  stories  of  him. 

September  20,  1668.  Heard  the  boy  read  over 
Dryden's  Reply  to  Sir  R.  Howard's  Answer,3  about 
his  Essay  of  Poesy,  and  a  letter  in  answer  to  that; 
the  last  whereof  is  mighty  silly,  in  behalf  of  Howard. 

1  Sir  Robert  Howard  (1626-1698)  was  prominent  both  as  a 
politician   and   a   playwright   at   Charles    II's    court.      He   was 
Auditor  of  the  Exchequer. 

2  Evelyn  has  this  entry  for  February   16,   1685:  "I  din'd  at 
Sr  Robt  Howard's,  Auditor  of  the  Exchequer,  a  gentleman  pre- 
tending to  all  manner  of  arts  and  sciences,  for  which  he  had  ben 
the  subject  of  comedy,  under  the  name  of  Sir  Positive;  not  ill^ 
natur'd,  but  insufferably  boasting"    (Diary,  Wheatley  ed.,   II, 
450).      Sir   Positive   At-all   is   a   character   in   Shadwell's    The 
Sullen  Lovers,  or  The  Impertinents. 

3  In  his  preface  to   The  Duke  of  Lerma,   1668.     "Dryden's 
Reply"  was  a  Defense  of  an  Essay  of  Dramatic  Poesy  (1668). 


THE  PLAYWRIGHTS  269 

Killigrew,  Thomas 

May  24,  1660.  Walking  upon  the  decks,1  where 
persons  of  honour  all  the  afternoon,  among  others, 
Thomas  Killigrew2  (a  merry  droll,  but  a  gentleman 
of  great  esteem  with  the  King),  who  told  us  many 
merry  stories. 

October  30,  1662.  Thos.  Killigrew's  way  of  get- 
ting to  see  plays  when  he  was  a  boy.  He  would  go 
to  the  Red  Bull,  and  when  the  man  cried  to  the  boys, 
"Who  will  go  and  be  a  devil,  and  he  shall  see  the  play 
-for  nothing?"  then  would  he  go  in,  and  be  a  devil 
upon  the  stage,  and  so  get  to  see  plays. 

February  12,  1666-67.  Here  [at -Lord  Brounck- 
er's  house]  we  met  Tom  Killigrew.  .  .  .  T.  Killi- 
grew and  I  to  talk :  and  he  tells  me  how  the  audience 
at  his  house  is  not  above  half  so  much  as  it  used  to 
be  before  the  late  fire.  .  .  .  That  the  stage  is  now 
by  his  pains  a  thousand  times  better  and  more  glori- 
1  ous  than  ever  heretofore.  .  .  .  He  tells  me  that  he 
hath  gone  several  times,  eight  or  ten  times,  he  tells 
me,  hence  to  Rome  to  hear  good  musique;  so  much 
he  loves  it,  though  he  never  did  sing  or  play  a  note. 
i  September  9,  1667.  I  fell  in  talk  with  Tom  Killi- 
grew about  musick. 

February  13,  1667-68.    Tom  Killigrew  hath  a  fee 

1  Of  The  Naseby,  later  The  Charles,  on  its  return  voyage  from 
Holland,  on  which  it  was  bringing  over  the  King. 

2  Thomas    Killigrew    (1612-1683),   dramatist   and,   as    Pepys 
attests,  court  fool  to  Charles  II,  had  followed  the  fortune  of 
his  royal  patron  in  exile;  he  became  in   1660  patentee  of  the 
King's  theatre. 


270  PEPYS  ON  THE  RESTORATION  STAGE 

out  of  the  Wardrobe  for  cap  and  bells,  under  the  title 
of  the  King's  Foole  or  Jester;  and  may  with  privilege 
revile  or  jeere  any  body,  the  greatest  person,  without 
offence,  by  the  privilege  of  his  place. 

July  6,  1668.  Hear  many  pretty  stories  of  ... 
Tom  Killigrew,  in  his  being  bred  in  Ram  Ally. 

January  24,  1668-69.  I  to  talk  with  Tom  Killi- 
grew, who  told  me  and  others,  talking  about  the  play- 
house, that  he  is  fain  to  keep  a  woman  on  purpose  at 
205.  a  week  to  satisfy  8  or  10  of  the  young  men  of 
his  house. 

March  6,  1668-69.  He  [Sir  W.  Coventry]  told 
me  the  matter  of  the  play  that  was  intended  for  his 
abuse.3  .  .  .  But  that,  that  he  is  offended  with,  is  his 
being  made  so  contemptible,  as  that  any  should  dare 
to  make  a  gentleman  a  subject  for  the  mirth  of  the 
world :  and  that  therefore  he  had  told  Tom  Killigrew 
that  he  should  tell  his  actors,  whoever  they  were,  that 
did  offer  at  anything  like  representing  him -that  he 
would  not  complain  to  my  Lord  Chamberlain,  which 
was  too  weak,  nor  get  him  beaten,  as  Sir  Charles  Sed- 
ley  is  said  to  have  done;  but  that  he  would  cause  his 
nose  to  be  cut. 

3  Wheatley  says  (Pepys's  Diary,  IX,  pp.  164-165):  "He  was 
informed  that  the  Duke  of  Buckingham  and  Sir  R.  Howard  were 
contemplating  a  caricature  of  him  on  the  stage,  so  he  at  once 
sent  a  challenge  to  the  duke,  with  the  result  that  he  found  himself 
in  the  Tower." 


THE  PLAYWRIGHTS  271 

Sedley,  Sir  Charles 

October  4,  1664.  I  happened  to  sit  near  to  Sir 
Charles  Sidly;1  who  I  find  a  very  witty  man,  and  he 
did  at  every  line  take  notice  of  the  dullness  of  the  poet 
and  badness  of  the  action,  that  most  pertinently; 
which  I  was  mightily  taken  with;  and  among  others 
where  by  Altemire's  command  Clarimont,  the  Gen- 
erall,  is  commanded  to  rescue  his  Rivall,  whom  she 
loved,  Lucidor,  he,  after  a  great  deal  of  demurre, 
broke  out,  "Well,  I'll  save  my  Rivall  and  make  her 
confess,  that  I  deserve,  while  he  do  but  possesse." 
"Why,  what,  pox,"  says  Sir  Charles  Sydly,  "would 
he  have  him  have  more,  or  what  is  there  more  to  be 
had  of  a  woman  than  the  possessing  her?" 

February  18,  1666-67.  To  the  King's  house,  to 
"The  Mayd's  Tragedy";  but  vexed  all  the  while  with 
two  talking  ladies  and  Sir  Charles  Sedley;  yet  pleased 
to  hear  their  discourse  he  being  a  stranger.  And  one 
of  the  ladies  would,  and  did  sit  with  her  mask  on,  all 
the  play.  .  .  .  He  was  mighty  witty.  .  .  .  But  by 
that  means  lost  the  pleasure  of  the  play  wholly,  to 
which  now  and  then  Sir  Charles  Sedley's  exceptions 
against  both  words  and  pronouncing  were  very 
pretty. 

July  14, 1667.    Hear  that  my  Lord  Buckhurst  and 

xSir  Charles  Sedley  (1639P-1701)  enjoyed  a  threefold  repu- 
tation in  his  own  day  as  wit,  rake,  and  playwright.  This 
account  of  his  conversation  at  a  performance  of  The  Generall  at 
the  King's  theatre  is  typical  of  the  man,  and  also  of  the  attitude 
of  his  contemporaries  towards  him. 


272  PEPYS  ON  THE  RESTORATION  STAGE 

Nelly  [Gwyn]  are  lodged  at  the  next  house,2  and  Sir 
Charles  Sidly  with  them:  and  keep  a  merry  house. 

February  6,  1667-68.  There3  I  found  him  [the 
Duke  of  Buckingham]  with  my  Lord  Buckhurst,  and 
Sidly,  and  Etherige,  the  poet. 

February  1,  1668-69.  To  the  King's  playhouse, 
thinking  to  have  seen  "The  Heyresse,"  first  acted  on 
Saturday  last;  but  when  we  come  thither,  we  find  no 
play  there;  Kinaston4  that  did  act  a  part  therein,  in 
abuse  to  Sir  Charles  Sedley,  being  last  night  exceed- 
ingly beaten  with  sticks,  by  two  or  three  that 
'  assaulted  him. 

February  9, 1668-69.  We  find  Kinaston  to  be  well 
^enough  to  act  again,  .  .  .  after  his  beating  by  Sir 
Charles  Sedley 's  appointment. 


Shadwell,  Thomas 

September  19, 1668.  To  the  King's  playhouse,  and 
there  saw  "The  Silent  Woman" ;  .  .  .  and  sitting  by 
Shadwell  the  poet,1  he  was  big  with  admiration  of  it. 

2  This  was  at  Epsom,  where  Pepys  was  staying  at  the  King's 
Head  inn. 

3  In  the  pit  at  the  Duke's  theatre  for  the  premiere  of  She 
Would  if  She  Could. 

4  Edward  Kynaston. 

1  Thomas  Shadwell  (1642.M692),  the  poet,  was  also  the 
author  of  comedies  of  contemporary  life ;  among  them  is  A  True 
Widow  (1679),  the  fourth  act  of  which  is  laid  in  a  theatre  and 
gives  a  lively  picture  of  the  inside  of  a  Restoration  playhouse. 


THE  PLAYWRIGHTS  273 

April  16,  1669.  But  here  I  did  meet  with  Shad- 
well,  the  poet,  who,  to  my  great  wonder,  do  tell  me 
that  my  Lord  of  [Orrery]  did  write  this  play.2  .  .  . 
This  do  trouble  me,  for  it  is  a  mean  thing,  and  so  he 
says. 

2  Guzman. 


CHAPTER  X 
THE   AUDIENCES 


CHAPTER  X 
THE  AUDIENCES 


Dress 


May  8,  1663.  The  play1  being  done,  we  home  by 
water,  having  been  a  little  ashamed  tiiat  «iy  wife  and 
woman  were  in  such  a  pickle,  all  the  ladies  being  finer 
and  better  dressed  in  the  pitt  than  they  used,  I  think, 
to  be. 

June  12,  1663.  Here2  I  saw  my  Lord  Falcon- 
bridge,  and  his  Lady,  my  Lady  Mary  Cromwell,  who 
looks  as  well  as  I  have  known  her,  and  well  clad ;  but 
when  the  House  began  to  fill  she  put  on  her  vizard,3 
and  so  kept  it  on  all  the  play ;  which  of  late  is  become 
a  great  fashion  among  the  ladies,  which  hides  their 
whole  face.  So  to  the  Exchange,  to  buy  things  with 
my  wife ;  among  others,  a  vizard  for  herself. 

1  The  Humourous  Lieutenant  at  the  new  Theatre  Royal  in 
Drury  Lane. 

2  At  the  King's  theatre. 

3  This    fashion    had    unfortunate    consequences ;    witness    the 
following    reference    in    James    Wright's    Historia    Histrionica, 
1699,  (in  Dodsley's  Old  English  Plays,  Hazlitt  ed.,  XV,  409): 
"Whereas  of  late  the  Play-houses  are  so  extreamely  pestered  with 
Vizard-masks  and  their  Trade   (occasioning  continual  Quarrels 
and  Abuses)  that  many  .    .    .  shun  the  Theater  as  they  would  a 
House  of  Scandal. 


\ 


278  PEPYS  ON  THE  RESTORATION  STAGE 

'-February  18, 1666-67.  And  one  of  the  ladies  would 
and  did  sit  with  her  mask  on,  all  the  play,  and,  being 
exceedingly  witty  as  ever  I  heard  a  woman,  did  talk 
most  pleasantly  with  him  [Sir  Charles  Sedley], 

December  12, 1667.  To  the  Duke  of  York's  house, 
and  saw  "The  Tempest."  .  .  .  Here  I  saw  a  French 
lady  in  the  pit,  with  a  tunique,  just  like  one  of  ours, 
only  a  handkercher  about  her  neck;  but  this  fashion 
for  a  woman  did  not  look  decent. 


Prominent  Spectators   \^^~ 

April  20,  1661.  To  the  Cockpitt  [Whitehall], 
and  there  by  the  favour  of  one  Mr.  Bowman,  he 
and  I  got  in  and  there  saw  the  King  and  the  Duke  of 
York  and  his  Duchess  (which  is  a  plain  woman,  and 
like  her  mother,  my  Lady  Chancellor).  And  so  saw 
"The  Humersome  Lieutenant"  acted  before  the 
King,  but  not  very  well  done.  But  my  pleasure  was 
great  to  see  the  manner  of  it,  and  so  many  great  beau- 
ties, but  above  all  Mrs.  Palmer,1  with  whom  the  King 
do  discover  a  great  deal  of  familiarity. 

August  17,  1661.  The  Queen  of  Bohemia2  was 
here  brought  by  my  Lord  Craven. 

1  Barbara  Villiers  (1640-1709),  who  married  Roger  Palmer  in 
1659.    The  latter  was  created  Earl  of  Castlemaine  in  1661.    His 
wife,  mistress  of  Charles  II,  later  bore  the  titles  of  Baroness 
Nonsuch,  Countess  of  Southampton,  and  Duchess  of  Cleveland. 

2  At  the  Duke's  playhouse.     She  was  Elizabeth,  daughter  of 
James  I,  widow  of  Frederic,  Elector  Palatine. 


THE  AUDIENCES  279 

November  17,  1662.  At  Whitehall  by  appoint- 
ment, Mr.  Creed  carried  my  wife  and  I  to  the  Cock- 
pitt,  and  we  had  excellent  places,  and  saw  the  King, 
Queen,3  Duke  of  Monmouth,4  his  son,  and  my  Lady 
Castlemaine,  and  all  the  fine  ladies. 

February  12,  1666-67.  This  done,  T.  Killigrew 
and  I  to  talk,  and  he  tells  me  how  the  audience  at  his 
house  is  not  above  half  so  much  as  it  used  to  be  be- 
fore the  late  fire.5  .  .  .  Then,  the  Queen  seldom  and 
the  King  never  would  come ;  now,  not  the  King  only 
for  state,  but  all  civil  people  do  think  they  may  come 
as  well  as  any  .  .  .  He  tells ,me  plainly  that  the  City 
audience  was  as  good  as  the  Court,  but  now  they  are 
most  gone. 

July  22,  1667.  Creed  tells  me  of  the  fray  between 
.the  Duke  of  Buckingham  at  the  Duke's  playhouse 
the  last  Saturday  .  .  .  and  Henry  Killigrew,  whom 
the  Duke  of  Buckingham  did  soundly  beat  and  take 
^away  his  sword,  and  make  a  fool  of,  till  the  fellow 
prayed  him  to  spare  his  life. 

August  12,  1667.  Here6  was  many  fine  ladies — 
among  others,  the  German  Baron,  with  his  lady,  who 
is  envoye  from  the  Emperour,  and  their  fine  daughter. 

February  6,  1667-68.  I  to  the  Duke  of  York's 
playhouse ;  where  a  new  play  of  Etherige's,  called 

3  Katherine    of    Braganza     (1638-1705),    who    had    married 
Charles  II,  May  21,  1662. 

4  James    Crofts    (1649-1685),    son    of    Charles    II    by    Lucy 
Waters,    created   Duke   of   Monmouth    February   4,    1662-1663, 
and  Duke  of  Buccleuch  in  1673. 

5  The  great  fire  of   1666. 

6  At  the  King's  theatre  where  Brennoralt  was  being  given. 


280  PEPYS  ON  THE  RESTORATION  STAGE 

"She  Would  if  She  Could."  ...  The  King  was 
there.  .  .  .  And  among  the  rest,  here  was  the  Duke  of 
Buckingham  to-day  openly  sat  in  the  pit;  and  there 
I  found  him7  with  my  Lord  Buckhurst,  and  Sidly, 
and  Etherige,  the  poet. 

December  21,  1668.  Thence  to  the  Duke's  play- 
house, and  saw  "Macbeth."  The  King  and  Court 
there;  and  we  sat  just  under  them  and  my  Lady 
Castlemayne,  and  close  to  the  woman  that  comes  into 
the  pit  a  kind  of  loose  gossip,  that  pretends  to  be  like 
her,  and  is  so,  something.  .  .  .  The  King  and  Duke 
of  York  minded  me,  and  smiled  upon  me,  at  the  hand- 
some woman  near  me:  but  it  vexed  me  to  see  Moll 
Davis,8  in  the  box  over  the  King's  and  my  Lady 
Castlemayne's  head,  look  down  upon  the  King,  and 
he  up  to  her;  and  so  did  my  lady  Castlemayne  once, 
to  see  who  it  was,  but  when  she  saw  her,  she  looked 
fire. 


Manners 

January  28, 1660-61.    And  here1  I  sitting  behind  in 
a  dark  place,  a  lady  spit  backward  upon  me  by  a 

7  George    Villiers,    Duke    of    Buckingham — who    had    been 
recently  accused  of  high  treason — Charles  Sackville  (Lord  Buck- 
hurst)  Sir  Charles  Sedley,  and  Sir  George  Etherege,  the  drama- 
tist. 

8  Mary  Davis,  the  actress  who  had  left  the  Duke's  company 
to  become  mistress  to  the  King. 

1  At  the  King's  theatre  during  a  performance  of   The  Lost 
Lady. 


THE  AUDIENCES  281 

mistake,2  not  seeing  me,  but  after  seeing  her  to  be  a 
very  pretty  lady,  I  was  not  troubled  at  it  at  all. 

October  2,  1662.  Into  one  of  the  boxes  next  the 
King's,3  but  so  as  I  could  not  see  the  King  or  Queene, 
but  many  of  the  fine  ladies,  who  yet  are  really  not  so 
handsome  generally  as  I  used  to  take  them  to  be,  but 
that  they  are  finely  dressed.  .  .  .  The  company  that 
came  in  with  me  into  the  box,  were  all  Frenchmen 
that  could  speak  no  English,  but  Lord!  what  sport 
they  made  to  ask  a  pretty  lady  that  they  got  among 
them  that  understood  both  French  and  English  to 
make  her  tell  them  what  the  actors  said. 

January  5, 1662-63.  To  the  Cockpitt  [Whitehall], 
where  we  saw  "Claracilla."  .  .  .  (Neither  the  King 
nor  Queen  were  there,  but  only  the  Duke  and 
Duchess,  who  did  show  some  impertinent  and,  me- 
thought,  unnatural  dalliances  there,  before  the  whole 
wrorld,  such  as  kissing,  and  leaning  upon  one 
another. ) 

February  18,  1666-67.  To  the  King's  house  to 
"The  Mayd's  Tragedy";  but  vexed  all  the  while  with 
two  talking  ladies  and  Sir  Charles  Sedley,  yet  pleased 
to  hear  their  discourse,  he  being  a  stranger.  And  one 
of  the  ladies  would  and  did  sit  with  her  mask  on,  all 
the  play,  and,  being  exceedingly  witty  as  ever  I  heard 
woman,  did  talk  most  pleasantly  with  him;  but  was, 

2  For  further  information  on  the  manners  and  customs  in  the 
Restoration  theatre,  see  Doran's  Annals  of  the  English  Stage, 
Lowe  ed.,  Vol.  I,  Chapter  XII   (Audiences  of  the  Seventeenth 
Century). 

3  At  The  Cardinal  at  the  Cockpit. 


282  PEPYS  ON  THE  RESTORATION  STAGE 

I  believe,  a  virtuous  woman,  and  of  quality.  He 
would  fain  know  who  she  was,  but  she  would  not  tell ; 
yet  did  give  him  many  pleasant  hints  of  her  knowl- 
edge of  him,  by  that  means  setting  his  brains  at  work 
to  find  out  who  she  was,  and  did  give  him  leave  to 
use  all  means  to  find  out  who  she  was  but  pulling 
off  her  mask.  He  was  mighty  witty,  and  she  also 
making  sport  of  him  very  inoffensively,  that  a  more 
pleasant  recontre  I  never  heard.  By  that  means  lost 
the  pleasure  of  the  play  wholly,  to  which  now  anoV 
then  Sir  Charles  Sedley's  exceptions  against  both 
words  and  pronouncing  were  very  pretty. 

August  12,  1667.  All  alone  to  the  King's  play- 
house, and  there  did  happen  to  sit  just  before  Mrs. 
Pierce,  and  Mrs.  Knepp,  who  pulled  me  by  the  hair; 
§nd  so  I  addressed  myself  to  them,  and  talked  to  them 
all  the  intervals  of  the  play,  and  did  give  them  fruit. 

February  6,  1667-68.  I  to  the  Duke  of  York's 
playhouse;  where  a  new  play  of  Etherige's  called 
"She  Would  if  she  Could,"  and  though  I  was  there 
by  two  o'clock,  there  was  1000  people  put  back  that 
could  not  have  room  in  the  pit.  .  .  .  The  play  being 
done,  I  into  the  pit  to  look  [for]  my  wife,  and  it  being 
dark  and  raining,  I  to  look  my  wife  out  but  could  not 
find  her;  and  so  staid  going  between  the  two  doors 
and  through  the  pit  an  hour  and  a  half,  I  think,  afte^ 
the  play  was  done;  the  people  staying  there  till  th 
rain  was  over,  and  to  talk  with  one  another. 


tne 

' 


THE  AUDIENCES  283 

Refreshments 

^   March  26,  1668.     And  there1  I  sat  it  costing  me 
8$.  upon  them  in  oranges  at  6d.2  a-piece. 
*   April  15,  1668.     Saw  "The  Maid's  Tragedy,"3  a 
good  play  .  .  .  play  and  oranges  2s.6d. 

April  14, 1668.    To  a  play,  "Love's  Cruelty."  .  .  . 
Play  part  2*.  Oranges  Is. 

April  17,  1668.    Knepp  .   .   .  come  after  her  song 
in  the  clouds4  to  me  in  the  pit,  and  there  oranges  2s. 

May  11,  1668.     But  there5  happened  one  thing 

which  vexed  me,  which  is,  that  the  orange-woman  did 

come  in  the  pit,  and  challenge  me  for  twelve  oranges, 

which  she  delivered  by  my  order  at  a  late  play,  at 

night,  to  give  to  some  ladies  in  a  box,  which  was 

^    wholly  untrue,  but  yet  she  swore  it  to  be  true.    But, 

A  however,  I  did  deny  it,  and  did  not  pay  her;  but  for 

quiet  did  buy  4s.  worth  of  oranges  of  her,  at  6d. 

a-piece. 

1  At  the  King's  theatre.  • 

2  This  was  the  usual  price  of  oranges  as  instanced  in  this  line 
from  the  prologue  to  Aphra  Behn's  Young  King  (1698): 

"Half-Crown  my  Play,  Sixpence  my  Orange  Cost." 

3  At  the  King's  theatre. 

4  In  The  Surprisal. 

5  At  the  Duke's  theatre.     The  following  statement  is  cited  by 
P.  Cunningham  (The  Story  of  Nell  Gwyn,  Wheatley  ed.,  pp.  22- 
23)    from   The    Young   Gallant's  Academy    (1674):    "The   next 
step  is  to  give  a  turn  to  the  China  orange  wench,  and  give  her 
her  own  rate  for  her  oranges  (for  'tis  below  a  gentleman  to  stand 
haggling  like  a  citizen's  wife),  and  then  to  present  the  fairest 
to  the  next  vizard-mask." 


284     PEPYS  ON  THE  RESTORATION  STAGE 
Orange  Moll 

August  29,  1666.  Found  Sir  W.  Pen  talking  to 
Orange  Moll,1  of  the  King's  house,  who,  to  our  great 
comfort,  told  us  that  they  begun  to  act  on  the  18th  of 
this  month. 

August  22, 1667.  Knipp  sent  by  Moll  to  desire  to 
speak  to  me  after  the  play. 

August  26,  1667.  Sir  W.  Pen  and  I  had  a  great 
deal  of  discourse  with  Moll;  who  tells  us  that  Nell 
fGwyn]  is  already  left  by  my  Lord  Buckhurst. 

November  2,  1667.  A  gentleman  of  good  habit, 
sitting  just  before  us,  eating  of  some  fruit  in  the  midst 
of  the  play,  did  drop  down  as  dead,  being  choked ;  but 
with  much  ado  Orange  Moll  did  thrust  her  finger 
down  his  throat,  and  brought  him  to  life  again. 

December  30,  1667.  In  the  first  act  ["Love's 
Cruelty"]  Orange  Moll2  come  to  me,  with  one  of  our 
porters  by  my  house,  to  tell  me  that  Mrs.  Pierce  and 
Knepp  did  dine  at  my  house  to-day,  and  that  I  was 
desired  to  come  home.  So  I  went  out  presently,  and 
by  coach  home,  and  they  were  just  gone  away;  so  ... 
to  the  King's  playhouse  again,  and  come  in  in  the 

1  The   head   "orange-woman"    was    generally    so-called.      The 
orange-women  stood  during  the  play  in  the  front  of  the  pit  with 
their  backs  to  stage;  before  the  play  and  between  the  acts  they 
went  about  crying  "Oranges !   will  you  have  any  oranges  ?" — 
(Shadwell's  A   True  Widow,  1679,  Act  IV,  Sc.  I)   and  selling 
their  wares   at  sixpence  apiece.      The  men   about  town   "broke 
jests"  and  gossiped  with  them  in  Restoration  fashion,  and  used 
them  as  messengers. 

2  This  was  perhaps  the  head  orange-woman  of  the  rival  theatre, 
the  Duke's  house.    "Orange  Moll"  belonged  to  the  King's  theatre. 


THE  AUDIENCES  285 

fourth  act.  .  .  .  But  the  jest  is,  that  here  telling  Moll 
how  I  lost  my  journey,  she  told  me  that  Mrs.  Knepp 
was  in  the  house,  and  so  shews  her  to  me,  and  I  went 
to  her  and  sat  out  the  play. 


PART  THREE 

CHAPTER  XI 
THE  THEATRES 


CHAPTER  XI 
THE  THEATRES 

Blackfriars 

January  29,  1660-61.  Went  to  Blackfryers1  (the 
first  time  I  was  ever  there  since  plays  begun),  and 
there  ...  I  saw  three  acts  of  "The  Mayd  in  ye  Mill" 
acted  to  my  great  content. 

October  19,  1668.  To  the  Duke  of  York's  play- 
house; and  there  saw,  the  first  time  acted  "The 
Queene  of  Arragon,"  an  old  Blackfriar's  play.2 

1  Probably  to  a  theatre  in  what  was  known  as  Cobham  House, 
which  stood  in  Water  Lane,  Blackfriars,  on  the  site  of  Apothe- 
caries'  Hall  before  the  Great  Fire.     Downes    (Roscius  Angli- 
canus,  p.  20)  states  that  D'Avenant's  company  acted  for  a  time 
at  Apothecaries'  Hall  before  moving  into  the  new  "Opera"  in 
Lincoln's   Inn  Fields  in   1662.     It  has,  however,  been  pointed 
out   by   Joseph    Knight   in   his    edition    of   Roscius   Anglicanus 
(Preface,   pp.   XXIV-XXV)    that  Apothecaries'    Hall   was   not 
built  until  after  the  Fire — until  1670,  in  fact.     Its  site  had  been 
occupied  up  to  that  time  by  Cobham  House.     "To  this,"  he  con- 
cludes, "which  seems  to  have  been  devoted  to  the   same   pur- 
poses   as    the    present    building,    Downes    assumably    refers." 
Knight's    statement   would,    of   course,   apply   to   this    entry   of 
Pepys,  who,  however,  gives  us  to  understand  that   D'Avenant 
moved  into  his  new  "Opera"  as  early  as  June,  1661. 

2  This  play  by  William  Habington  had  been  staged  at  the  old 
Blackfriars  theatre  of  Elizabethan  fame,  pulled  down  on  August 
5,    1655,    according   to    Wheatley's    London    Past   and   Present 
(I,  201). 


290     PEPYS  ON  THE  RESTORATION  STAGE 
"Chyrurgeons'  Hall" 

February  27,  1662-63.  I  walked  to  Chyrurgeon's 
Etall,1  we  being  all  invited  thither,  and  promised  to 
dine  there,  where  we  were  led  into  the  theatre. 

August  29,  1668.  To  Chyrurgeon's-hall,  where 
they  are  building  it  new,  very  fine;  and  there  to  see 
their  theatre,  which  stood  all  the  fire. 

The  Cockpit,  Drury  Lane 

February  20,  1659-60.  I  heard  Mr.  Harrington, 
and  my  Lord  Dorset  and  another  Lord,  talking  of 
getting  another  place  as  the  Cockpit,1  and  they  did 
believe  it  would  come  to  something. 

1  Barber-Surgeons'  Hall,  Monkwell  Street.  In  London  Past 
and  Present  (I,  p.  102),  Wheatley  says  of  it:  "The  Theatre, 
1636-1637,  called  by  Walpole,  'one  of  the  best  of  Inigo's  works/ 
was  pulled  down  in  1783."  Pepys  attended  a  lecture  6n  this 
occasion. 

1  The  Cockpit  in  Drury  Lane  had  been  used  as  a  theatre  as 
early  as  1617-18.  In  1658  Sir  William  D'Avenant's  so-called 
"opera,"  The  Cruelty  of  the  Spaniards  in  Peru,  was  brought  out 
here.  Later  a  company  of  actors  assembled  at  the  Cockpit, 
at  one  time  under  the  management  of  John  Rhodes,  to  whom 
Sir  Henry  Herbert  sent  a  warrant  dated  October  8,  1660,  de- 
manding his  authority  for  "Erecting  of  said  House,  Into  a  Play- 
house." (Cf.  A  Collection  of  Ancient  Documents  respecting  the 
Office  of  Master  of  the  Revels,  compiled  by  J.  O.  Halliwell- 
Phillips,  p.  26.)  H.  B.  Baker,  in  A  History  of  the  London  Stage 
and  its  Famous  Players  (p.  IX),  gives  1661  as  the  probable  date 
of  its  destruction. 

There  has  been  great  confusion  between  this  public  theatre 
in  Drury  Lane  and  the  royal  private  theatre  of  the  same  name 


THE  THEATRES  291 

August  18,  1660.  To  the  Cockpitt  play,  the  first 
that  I  have  had  time  to  see  since  my  coming  from  sea, 
"The  Loyall  Subject,"  where  one  Kinaston,  a  boy, 
acted  the  Duke's  sister. 

October  11,  1660.  To  the  Cockpit  to  see  "The 
Moore  of  Venice,"  which  was  well  done.  Burt2  acted 
the  Moore. 

October  16,  1660.  To  the  Cockpit,  where,  under- 
standing that  "Wit  without  money"  was  acted,  I 
would  not  stay. 

October  30,  1660.  In  the  afternoon  ...  to  the 
Cockpit  all  alone,  and  there  saw  .  .  .  "The  Tamer 
Tamed." 

The  Cockpit,  Whitehall  Palace 

November  20, 1660.  I  found  my  Lord  [Sandwich] 
in  bed  late,  he  having  been  with  the  King,  Queen,  and 
Princesse,  at  the  Cockpit1  all  night,  where  ...  a 
play,  where  the  King  did  put  a  great  affront  upon 
Singleton's  musique. 

adjoining  Whitehall  Palace.  These  four  entries  would  seem  to 
refer  to  the  Drury  Lane  playhouse.  References  in  the  Diary 
to  "the  Cockpit"  after  November  15,  1660,  appear  from  the 
context  to  point  definitely  to  the  Whitehall  theatre. 

2  Nicholas  Burt,  who  had  been  one  of  the  prominent  actors  of 
this  company  as  early  as  August  14,  1660,  when  his  name 
appears  in  an  agreement  with  Sir  Henry  Herbert,  was  drafted 
into  the  King's  company. 

1  This  was  evidently  the  royal  private  theatre  adj  oining  White- 
hall Palace,  as  the  plays  at  the  Cockpit  in  Drury  Lane  and  all 
other  public  theatres  were  acted  in  the  afternoon, — the  com- 
panies being  therefore  free  to  perform  before  the  King  in  the 


292  PEPYS  ON  THE  RESTORATION  STAGE 

April  20,  1661.  Then  with  my  Lady  [Sandwich] 
...  to  Whitehall.  .  .  .  That  being  done  ...  I 
carried  my  Lady  back  ...  So  back  to  the  Cockpitt^ 
and  there  by  the  favour  of  one  Mr.  Bowman,  he  and 
I  got  in  ...  and  so  saw  "The  Humersome  Lieuten- 
ant" acted  before  the  King,  but  not  very  well  done. 
.  .  .  The  play  being  done  went  to  Mrs.  Harper's  and. 
there  sat  and  drank,  it  being  about  twelve  at  night. 

October  2, 1662.  At  night  by  coach  towards  White- 
hall .  .  .  hearing  that  there  was  a  play  at  the  Cock- 
pit .  .  .  I  do  go  thither,  and  by  very  great  fortune, 
did  follow  four  or  five  gentlemen  who  were  carried  to 
a  little  private  door  in  the  wall,  and  so  crept  through 
a  narrow  place  and  come  into  one  of  the  boxes  next 
the  King's,  but  so  -as  I  could  not  see  the  King  or 
Queene,  but  many  fine  ladies.  .  .  .  Here  we  saw  "The 
Cardinall." 

November  17,  1662.  At  Whitehall  by  appoint- 
ment, Mr.  Creed  carried  my  wife  and  I  to  the  Cock- 
pitt,  and  ...  saw  ...  "The  Scornfull  Lady"  well 
performed.  They  had  done  by  eleven  o'clock. 

December  1,  1662.  To  the  Cockpit  ...  I  saw 
"The  Valiant  Cidd"  .  .  .  done  by  Betterton  and 
lanthe. 

January  5,  1662-63.  To  the  Cockpitt,  where  we 
saw  "Claracilla,"  a  poor  play,  done  by  the  King's 
house. 

evening.  "The  site  is  now  occupied  by  the  Privy  Council  Office." 
(Cf.  Edgar  Sheppard,  The  Old  Royal  Palace  of  Whitehall,  p.  67, 
and  also  Fisher's  plan  at  end  of  the  volume,  showing  the  exact 
location  of  Cockpit.) 


THE  THEATRES  293 

'The  Court  Theatre,  Whitehall  Palace 

February  23,  1662-63.  To  Court,  and  there  got 
good  places,  and  saw  "The  Wilde  Gallant,"  per- 
formed by  the  King's  house,  but  it  was  ill  acted.  .  .  . 
But  it  being  .  .  .  the  last  play  that  is  likely  to  be 
acted  at  Court  before  Easter,  because  of  the  Lent 
coming  in,  I  was  the  easier  content  to  fling  away  so 
'much  money.1 

October  17,  1664-  Went  early  home  to  bed,  my 
wife  not  being  come  home  from  my  Lady  Jemimah, 
with  whom  she  hath  been  at  a  play  at  Court  to-day. 

April  20, 1665.  This  night  I  am  told  the  first  play 
is  played  in  White  Hall  noon-hall,  which  is  now 
turned  to  a  house  of  playing.  I  had  a  great  mind, 
but  could  not  go  to  see  it. 

October  29,  1666.  To  White  Hall  and  into  the 
new  play-house2  there,  the  first  time  I  ever  was 
there,  and  the  first  play  I  have  seen  since  before  the 
great  plague  .  .  .  the  play  being  "Love  in  a  Tub," 
a  silly  play.  .  .  .  Besides,  the  House,  though  very 
fine,  yet  bad  for  the  voice,  for  hearing. 

December  28,  1666.  To  White  Hall,  and  got  my 
Lord  Bellasses  to  get  me  into  the  playhouse;  and 

"The  Court  theatre  was  so  far  public  that  persons  could  get 
in  by  payment"  (Pepys's  Diary,  Wheatley  ed.,  Ill,  48). 

2  "Charles  built  a  new  playhouse  at  Whitehall,  to  which  Pepys 
went"  (Wheatley,  London  Past  and  Present,  III,  512).  Shep- 
pard  in  his  The  Old  Royal  Palace  of  Whitehall  mentions  no 
theatre  there  except  the  Cockpit,  and  states  that  the  location  of 
the  "noon-hall"  referred  to  is  not  known.  There  is  a  warrant 
appointing  Henry  Glover  "Keeper  of  the  Royal  Theatre  at 
Whitehall,  with  scenes,  engines,  etc."  dated  November  21,  1666. 
(Cf.  Calendar  of  State  Papers,  1666-67,  p.  278.) 


294  PEPYS  ON  THE  RESTORATION  STAGE 

there  .  .  .  saw  "Henry  the  Fifth"  well  done  by  the 
Duke's  people,  and  in  most  excellent  habits,  all  new 
vests,  being  put  on  but  this  night.  But  I  sat  so  high 
and  far  off,  that  I  missed  most  of  the  words,  and  sat 
with  a  wind  coming  into  my  back  and  neck,  which  did 
much  trouble  me. 

November  16,  1667.  To  White  Hall;  and  there 
got  into  the  theater-room,  and  there  heard  both  the 
vocall  and  instrumentall  musick. 

January  14,  1667-68.  Thence  by  coach  to  Mrs. 
Pierce's,  where  my  wife  and  Deb.  is;  and  there  they 
fell  to  discourse  of  the  last  night's  work  at  Court, 
where  the  ladies  and  Duke  of  Monmouth  and  others 
acted  "The  Indian  Emperour." 

February  15, 1668-69.  To  White  Hall;  and  there, 
by  means  of  Mr.  Cooling,  did  get  into  the  play,  the 
only  one  we  have  seen  this  winter:  it  was  "The  Five 
Hours'  Adventure";  but  I  sat  so  far  that  I  could 
not  hear  well,  nor  was  there  any  pretty  woman  that  I 
did  see,  but  my  wife,  who  sat  in  Lady  Fox's  pew  with 
her. 

February  22,  1668-69.  To  White  Hall,  and  there 
did  without  much  trouble  get  [the  ladies]  into  the 
playhouse,  there  in  a  good  place  among  the  Ladies  of 
Honour,  and  myself  also  sat  in  the  pit,  and  there 
by  and  by  come  the  King  and  Queen,  and  they  be- 
gun "Bartholomew  Fayre."  But  I  like  no  play  here 
so  well  as  at  the  common  playhouse ;  besides  that,  my 
eyes  being  very  ill  since  last  Sunday  and  this  day 
se'n-night,  with  the  light  of  the  candles,  I  was  in 
mighty  pain  to  defend  myself  now  from  the  light  of 
the  candles. 


THE  THEATRES  295 

The  Duke's  Playhouse    ("The  Opera"),  Lincoln's 
Inn  Fields 

July  2,  1661.  To  Sir  William  Davenant's  Opera; 
this  being  the  fourth  day  that  it  hath  begun,1  and  the 
first  that  I  have  seen  it.  ...  And  by  the  breaking 
of  a  board  over  our  heads,  we  had  a  great  deal  of 
dust  fell  into  the  ladies'  necks  and  the  men's  hair, 
which  made  good  sport.  The  King  being  come,  the 
scene  opened;  which  indeed  is  very  fine  and  mag- 
nificent. 

August  15,  1661.  To  the  Opera  which  begins 
again  to-day  with  "The  Witts"  never  yet  acted  with 

1  In  spite  of  the  fact  that  Dowries  (Roscius  Anglicanus,  p.  20) 
gives  the  spring  of  1662  as  the  date  of  the  opening  of  D'Ave- 
nant's  theatre  in  Lincoln's  Inn  Fields,  and  that  Maidment  and 
Logan  (The  Dramatic  Works  of  Sir  William  D'Avenant,  III, 
245)  state  that  this  performance  of  The  Siege  of  Rhodes  "ap- 
pears from  Pepys"  to  have  taken  place  at  Salisbury  Court,  this 
evidence  to  the  contrary  would  seem  to  be  weighty,  if  not  final. 
It  will  be  noted  that  Pepys  refers  again  on  November  4,  1661, 
to  the  removal  of  the  Duke's  company  from  Salisbury  Court. 
In  the  "Articles  of  Agreement"  between  D'Avenant  and  his 
company,  headed  by  Betterton  and  Harris,  dated  November  5, 
1660  (in  J.  O.  Halliwell-Phillipps's  A  Collection  of  Ancient 
Documents  respecting  the  Office  of  the  Master  of  the  Revels,  pp. 
27-31),  several  interesting  stipulations  with  regard  to  the  new 
theatre  are  made:  D'Avenant  is  to  nominate  "a  Consort  of  Musi- 
ciens"  "not  exceeding  the  rate  of  30*.  the  day";  provision  is 
made  for  the  "making  of  frames  for  Scenes,"  as  well  as  for 
scenes,  properties,  and  costumes;  seven  of  the  fifteen  shares  of 
the  "receipts"  are  to  go  to  D'Avenant  "to  mainteine  all  the 
Women";  and  admission  is  to  be  by  "Ballatine  or  tickettes." 


296  PEPYS  ON  THE  RESTORATION  STAGE 

scenes;   ...   a  most  excellent  play  and  admirable 
scenes. 

October  21,  1661.  To  the  Opera  which  is  now 
newly  begun  to  act  again,  after  some  alteracion  of 
their  scene,2  which  do  make  it  very  much  worse;  but 
the  play  "Love  and  Honour"  .  .  .  well  done. 

November  4,  1661.  To  the  Opera,  where  we  saw 
"The  Bondman,"  which  of  old  we  both  did  so  doat  on, 
and  do  still ;  though  to  both  our  thinking  not  so  well 
acted  here  ...  as  formerly  at  Salisbury- Court. 

July  22,  1663.  [Wotton]  tells  me  the  reason  of. 
Harris's  going  from  Sir  Wm.  Davenant's  house,  that 
he  grew  very  proud  and  demanded  £20  for  himself 
extraordinary,  more  than  Betterton  or  any  body  else, 
upon  every  new  play,  and  £10  upon  every  revive; 
which  with  other  things  Sir  W.  Davenant  would  not 
give  him. 

October  24, 1663.  By  the  Duke  of  York's  persua- 
sion Harris  is  come  again  to  Sir  W.  Davenant  upon 
his  terms  that  he  demanded. 

October  25, 1666.  Mrs.  Williams  says,  the  Duke's 
house  will  now  be  much  the  better  of  the  two,  because 
of  their  women ;  which  I  was  glad  to  hear. 

March  21,  1666-67.  Unexpectedly  I  come  to  see 
only  the  young  men  and  women  of  the  house  act; 
they  having  liberty  to  act  for  their  own  profit  on 
Wednesdays  and  Fridays  this  Lent,  and  the  play 
[The  Marriage,  Night~\  they  did  yesterday,  beting 

2  Downes  does  not  mention  this  "alteration  of  their  scene/' 
but  describes  (Roscius  Anglicanus,  pp.  21-22)  the  costumes 
worn  by  the  various  actors  in  this  play,  which  was  "Richly 
C[l]oath'd." 


THE  THEATRES  297 

Wednesday,  was  so  well  taken,  that  they  thought 
fit  to  venture  it  publickly  to-day. 

July  22,  1667.  Creed  tells  me  of  the  fray  between 
the  Duke  of  Buckingham  at  the  Duke's  playhouse  the 
last  Saturday  (and  it  is  the  first  day  I  have  heard 
that  they  have  acted  at  either  the  King's  or  Duke's 
houses  this  month  or  six  weeks)  and  Henry  Killi- 
grew. 


The  King's  Theatre,  Vere  Street,  Clare  Market 

November  20, 1660.  Mr.  Shepley  and  I  to  the  new 
Play-house1  near  Lincoln's-Inn-Fields  (which  was 
formerly  Gibbon's  tennis-court),  where  the  play  of 
"Beggar's  Bush"  was  newly  begun;  .  .  .  and  indeed 
it  is  the  finest  play-house,  I  believe,  that  ever  was  in 
England. 

March  11,  1660-61.  After  dinner  I  went  to  the 
Theatre,  and  there  saw  "Love's  Mistress"  done  by 
them,  which  I  do  not  like  in  some  things  as  well  as 
their  acting2  in  Salsbury  Court 

July  4,  1661.  But  strange  to  see  this  house,  that 
used  to  be  so  thronged,  now  empty  since  the  Opera 
begun;  and  so  will  continue  for  a  while,  I  believe. 

June  1, 1663.  Walked  to  the  New  Theatre,  which, 
since  the  King's  players  are  gone  to  the  Royal  one 

1  This  was  the  theatre,  in  Vere  Street,  occupied  by  the  King's 
company,   managed   by   Thomas   Killigrew,    from    November    8, 
1660,  until  May  7  (?),  1663. 

2  The  Duke's  company. 


298  PEPYS  ON  THE  RESTORATION  STAGE 

*v 

>is  this  day  begun  to  be  employed  by  the  fencers  to 
play  prizes  at.3 

April  23,  1669.  My  wife  ...  at  the  New  Nur- 
sery, which  is  set  up  at  the  house  in  Lincoln's  Inn 
Fields  which  was  formerly  the  King's  house. 


The  King's  Theatre,  Drury  Lane 

September  24,  1662.  Thence  to  Mr.  Wotton,  the 
shoemaker's,  .  .  .  and  he  told  me  .  .  .  that  the  new 
theatre  of  all1  will  be  ready  against  term. 

February  6,  1662-63.  Thence  to  Lincoln's  Inn 
Fields,  and  it  being  too  soon  to  go  to  dinner,  I  walked 
up  and  down,  and  looked  upon  the  outside  of  the  new 
theatre,  now  a-building  in  Covent  Garden,  which 
will  be  very  fine. 

May  7,  1663.     This  day  the  new  Theatre  Royal2 

3  According  to  Pepys,  the  King's  company  had  removed  to  the 
theatre  in  Drury  Lane  on  May  7  of  this  year.  A  similar  fate 
overtook  the  Red  Bull  Playhouse. 

1  Evidently  the  theatre  being  built,  at  a  cost  of  <£  1,500,  for  the 
King's  company  in  Drury  Lane. 

2  April  8,  1663,  is  the  date  generally  given  for  the  opening 
performance  at  this   Drury   Lane   theatre   on  the   authority   of 
Downes    (Roscius  Anglicanus,   p.    3),   and   an   alleged   playbill 
bearing   this    date   reproduced   in    facsimile   in    H.    B.    Baker's 
English  Actors  (I,  37).     Pepys's  statement  may,  however,  still 
stand.     He  not  only  asserts  definitely  twice  that  the  theatre  was 
opened  on  May  7,  but  on  April  22  he  saw  at  the  "King's  Theatre" 
Wit  without  Money,  and  did  not  comment  on  the  playhouse  as  he 
surely  would  have  done  had  it  been  the  new  one  in  Drury  Lane. 
R.  W.  Lowe  (Thomas  Betterton,  1891   ed.,  pp.   100-101)   calls 


THE  THEATRES  299 

begins  to  act  with  scenes  the  Humourous  Lieutenant, 
but  I  have  not  time  to  see  it.  ^ 

May  8,  1663.  Thence  to  the  new  playhouse,  but 
could  not  get  in  to  see  it.  ...  Thence  to  my  brother's, 
and  there  took  up  my  wife  and  Ashwell  to  the 
Theatre  Royall,  being  the  second  day  of  its  being 
opened.  The  house  is  made  with  extraordinary  good 
contrivance,3  and  yet  hath  some  faults,  as  the  nar- 
rowness of  the  passages  in  and  out  of  the  pitt,  and 
the  distance  from  the  stage  to  the  boxes,  which  I  am 
confident  cannot  hear,  but  for  all  other  things  it  is- 
well,  only,  above  all,  the  musique  being  below,4  and 
most  of  it  sounding  under  the  very  stage,  there  is  no 
hearing  of  the  bases  at  all,  nor  very  well  of  the  trebles, 
which  sure  must  be  mended.  The  play  was  "The 
Humerous  Lieutenant." 

attention  to  inconsistencies  in  Downes's  statement  that  the  open- 
ing was  on  Thursday  of  Easter  week  in  1663,  April  8  not  being 
"Thursday  in  Easter  week"  and  not  Thursday  at  all  but  Wednes- 
day. He  regards  the  playbill  as  a  "not  very  astute  forgery." 
All  authorities  are  agreed  that  the  play  given  at  the  opening  per- 
formance was  Fletcher's  The  Humourous  Lieutenant. 

3  H.   B.   Baker,  in  A   History   of  the  London  Stage  and  its 
Famous  Players,  p.  46,  quotes  the  following  account  of  the  thea- 
tre written  by  the  French  traveler,  Balthasar  de  Monconys,  who 
visited  it  about  two  weeks  later,  on  May  22,  1663:  "Le  theatre  est 
le  plus  propre  et  le  plus  bien  que  j'ai  jamais  vu,  tout  tapisse 
par  le  bas  de  bayette  verte;  aussi  bien  que  toutes  les  loges  qui  ' 
en  sont  tapisses  avec  des  bandes  de  cuir  dore.     Tous  les  banes 
du   parterre,   oii  toutes   les   personnes   de   condition   se  mettent 
aussi,  sont  ranger  en  amphitheatre  les  uns  plus  hauts  que  les     ^  j 
autres.     Les  changements  de  theatre,  et  les  machines  sont  fort 
ingenieusement  inventees  et  executees." 

4  Up  to  this  time  the  musicians  had  occupied  a  gallery. 


\ 


500  PEPYS  ON  THE  RESTORATION  STAGE 

'March  19, 1665-66.  After  dinner  we  walked  to  the 
King's  play-house,  all  in  dirt,  they  being  altering  of 
the  stage  to  make  it  wider.  But  God  knows  when 
they  will  begin  to  act  again ;  but  my  business  here  was 
to  see  the  inside  of  the  stage  and  all  the  tiring-rooms 
and  machines;  and,  indeed,  it  was  a  sight  worthy 

'seeing. 

^December  11,  1667.  All  agree  that  it  [Catiline] 
cannot  be  well  done  at  that  house,  there  not  being 

*good  actors  enow.  .    .    .  The  King  gives  them  £500 
for  robes,  there  being,  as  they  say,  to  be  sixteen  scar- 

le^t  robes. 

;;  January  11,  1667-68.     Catelin  ...   for  want  of 

clothes  which  the  King  promised  them,  will  not  be 

acted  for  a  good  while. 

May  1,  1668.    To  the  King's  playhouse,  and  .   .   . 

a  disorder  in  the  pit  by  its  raining  in,  from  the  cupola 

at  top,  it  being  a  very  foul  day. 

September  28,  1668.    Knepp's  maid  comes  to  me, 

to  tell  me  that  the  women's  day  at  the  playhouse  is 

to-day.5 


The  Red  Bull 

August  3, 1660.  I  could  not  do  as  I  had  intended, 
that  is  to  return  to  them  and  go  to  the  Red  Bull  Play- 
house.1 

5  The  women's  benefit. 

1  The  Red  Bull  Playhouse,  in  St.  John's  Street,  was  one  of  the 
pre- Restoration  theatres  of  the  poorer  class.     Here  a  company 


STAGE  OF  THE  SO-CALLED  RED  BULL  THEATRE 


THE  THEATRES  301 

March  23,  1660-61.  Then  out  to  the  Red  Bull 
(where  I  had  not  been  since  plays  come  up  again), 
but  coming  too  soon  I  went  out  again.  .  .  .  At  last 
came  back  again  and  went  in,  where  I  was  led  by  a 
seaman  that  knew  me,  but  is  here  as  a  servant,  up  to 
the  tireing-room,  where  strange  the  confusion  and 
disorder  that  there  is  among  them  in  fitting  them- 
selves, especially  here,  where  the  clothes  are  very 
poor,  and  the  actors  but  common  fellows.  At  last  into 
the  pitt,  where,  I  think  there  was  not  above  ten  more 
than  myself,  and  not  one  hundred  in  the  whole  house. 
And  the  play,  which  is  called  "All's  lost  by  Lust," 
poorly  done;  and  with  so  much  disorder,  among 
others,  that  in  the  musique-room  the  boy  that  was  to 
sing  a  song,  not  singing  it  right,  his  master  fell  about 
his  ears  and  beat  him  so,  that  it  put  the  whole  house 
in  an  uprore. 

October  SO,  1662.  Thos.  Killigrew's  way  of  get- 
ting to  see  plays  when  he  was  a  boy.  He  would  go 
to  the  Red  Bull,  and  when  the  man  cried  to  the  boys, 
"Who  will  go  and  be  a  devil,  and  he  shall  see  the  play 
for  nothing?"  then  he  would  go  in  and  be  a  devil  upon 
the  stage. 

May  26,  1662.  To  the  Redd  Bull,  where  we  saw 
Dr.  Faustus  wretchedly  and  poorly  done. 

April  25,  1664.  To  the  Red  Bull,  and  there  saw 
the  latter  part  of  a  rude  prize  fought.2 

of  "old  actors"  was  assembled  as  soon  as  Monck  declared  for  the 
King  in  1659;  before  March  23,  1660-61,  when  Pepys  went  there, 
the  best  actors  had  gone  over  to  Killigrew.  (Cf.  H.  B.  Baker, 
A  History  of  the  London  Stage  .  .  .  ,  p.  36.) 

2  That  the  Red  Bull  still  further  degenerated  is  shown  by  an 


302  PEPYS  ON  THE  RESTORATION  STAGE 

The  Salisbury  Court  Theatre,  Whitefriars 

February  9, 1660-61.  Creed  and  I  to  Whitefriars1 
to  the  Play-house  and  saw  "The  Mad  Lover." 

February  12,  1660-61.  By  water  to  Salsbury 
Court  play-house,  where  not  liking  to  sit,  we  went  out 
again. 

February  23,  1660-61.  Then  by  water  to  White- 
friars to  the  Play-house  and  there  saw  "The  Change- 
ling." 

March  1, 1660-61.  To  Whitefryars  and  saw  "The 
Bondman"  acted.  .  .  .  But  above  all  that  ever  I  saw, 
Betterton  do  the  Bondman  best. 

March  2,  1660-61.  To  Salsbury  Court,  where  the 
house  as  full  as  could  be;  and  it  seems  it  was  a  new 
play  "The  Queene's  Maske." 

allusion  in  D'Avenant's  The  Playhouse  to  be  Let  (1663?).     The 
Player  says  (Act  I) : 

"Tell  'em  the  Red  Bull  stands  empty  for  fencers: 
There  are  no  tenants  in  it  but  old  spiders. 
Go,  bid  the  men  of  wrath  allay  their  heat 
With  prizes  there." 

1  It  is  usually  understood  that  here  and  elsewhere  the  term 
"Whitefriars"  is  used  to  designate  the  quarter  so-called  (be- 
tween Fleet  Street  and  the  Thames,  east  of  the  Temple),  in 
which  stood  the  Salisbury  Court  theatre,  rebuilt  in  1660,  and 
not  to  designate  the  old  Whitefriars  theatre  of  the  pre-Restora- 
tion  period.  It  will  be  noted  from  a  comparison  of  the  entries 
for  March  19  and  March  26  that  Pepys  used  the  terms  "White- 
friars" and  "Salisbury  Court"  interchangeably.  D'Avenant's 
company,  to  which  Betterton  belonged,  probably  played  here  from 
November,  1660,  to  the  time  the  Lincoln's  Inn  Fields  house  was 


THE  THEATRES  303 

March  16, 1660-61.  To  Whitefriars  and  saw  "The 
Spanish  Curate." 

March  19,  1660-61.  To  White-Fryars,  where  we 
saw  "The  Bondman"  acted  most  excellently. 

March  25,  1661.  To  Salisbury  Court  by  water, 
and  saw  part  of  the  "Queene's  Maske." 

March  26,  1661.  To  Salisbury  Court,  .  .  .  and 
saw  "The  Bondman"  done  to  admiration. 

April  1,  1661.  To  White-Fryars  and  there  saw 
part  of  "Rule  a  wife  and  have  a  wife." 

April  2,  1661.  To  White-fryars  and  saw  "The 
Little  Thiefe." 

April  6,  1661.  To  Salisbury  Court  and  there  saw 
"Love's  Quarrell." 

September  9,  1661.  To  Salisbury  Court  play 
house  where  was  acted  the  first  time  "  'Tis  pity  Shee's 
a  Whore,"  a  simple  play  and  ill  acted. 


The  Projected  Nursery  for  Actors,  Moorfields 

August  2, 1664.  Thence  to  the  King's  play-house, 
and  there  saw  "Bartholomew  Fayre."  .  .  .  I  chanced 
to  sit  by  Tom  Killigrew  who  tells  me  that  he  is 
setting  up  a  Nursery;1  that  is,  is  going  to  build  a  house 

opened,,  June,  1661,,  except  for  rehearsals,  and  performances  in 
January,  at  Apothecaries'  Hall  (?),  Blackfriars. 

1  This  reference  is  either  to  the  proposed  "Nursery"  which 
William  Legg  was  granted  a  license  to  build  in  March  of  this 
year  "For  breeding  players  in  London  or  Westminster  under 
the  oversight  and  approbation  of  Sir  William  Davenant  and 
Thos.  Killigrew"  (Cf.  Calendar  of  State  Papers,  Domestic, 


304  PEPYS  ON  THE  RESTORATION  STAGE 

in  Moorefields,  wherein  he  will  have  common  plays 
acted.  But  four  operas  it  shall  have  in  the  year,  to 
act  six  weeks  at  a  time ;  where  we  shall  have  the  best 
scenes  and  machines,  the  best  musique,  and  every 
thing  as  magnificent  as  is  in  Christendome ;  and  to 
that  end  hath  sent  for  voices  and  painters  and  other 
persons  from  Italy. 

February  12,  1666-67.  He  [Killigrew]  do  intend 
f  o  have  some  times  of  the  year  these  operas  to  be  per- 
formed at  the  two  present  theatres,  since  he  is  de- 
feated in  what  he  intended  in  Moorefields  on  purpose 
for  it. 


"The  Nursery" 

January  7,  1667-68.  To  the  Nursery,1  where  I 
never  was  yet,  and  there  to  meet  my  wife,  .  .  .  but 
the  house  did  not  act  to-day. 

1663-64,  p.  539),  or  to  one  planned  by  Killigrew  for  the  sole 
benefit  of  the  King's  company  in  Moorfields,  but,  as  Pepys 
attests,  never  built.  It  is  probable  that  Killigrew  afterwards 
made  use  of  a  Nursery  in  Hatton  Garden,  and  later,  of  the  old 
"King's  theatre"  in  Lincoln's  Inn  Fields  for  similar  purposes. 
The  location  of  the  various  "Nurseries"  is  one  of  the  still  vexed 
questions  of  Restoration  stage  history. 

1  Either  the  one  in  Golden  Lane,  Barbican,  ridiculed  by  Dry- 
den  in  his  McFlecknoe — 

"Near  there  a  Nursery  erects  its  head 
Where  queens  are  formed,  and  future  heroes  bred," 

as  H.  B.  Baker  asserts  (A  History  of  the  London  Stage  and  its 
Famous  Players,  pp.  39-40)  ;  or  the  Nursery  in  Hatton  Garden 
built  by  Captain  Bedford,  probably  managed  by  Killigrew. 


THE  THEATRES  305 

V  . 

February  24,  1667-68.  To  the  Nursery,  where 
none  of  us  ever  were  before ;  where  the  house  is  better 
and  the  musique  better  than  we  looked  for,  and  the 
acting  not  much  worse,  because  I  expected  as  bad  as 
could  be :  and  I  was  not  much  mistaken,  for  it  was  so. 
However,  I  was  pleased  well  to  see  it  once.  .  .  .  Their 
play  was  a  bad  one,  called  "  Jeronimo  is  Mad  Again,"2 
a  tragedy.  Here  was  some  good  company  by  us,  who 
did  make  mighty  sport  at  the  folly  of  their  acting. 

February  25,  1667-68.  I  took  my  wife  and  Deb. 
up,  and  to  the  Nursery,  where  I  was  yesterday,  and 
there  saw  them  act  a  comedy,  a  pastorall,  "The  Fayth- 
ful  Shepherd,"3  having  curiosity  to  see  whether  they 
did  a  comedy  better  than  a  tragedy;  but  they  do  it 
both  alike,  in  the  meanest  manner,  that  I  was  sick  of 
it,  but  only  for  to  satisfy  myself  once  in  seeing  the 
manner  of  it,  but  I  shall  see  them  no  more,  I  believe. 

March  7 ' ,  1667-68.  One  Hanes,4  only  lately  come 
thither  from  the  Nursery. 

March  27,  1668.  So  up  and  down  to  the  Nursery, 
where  they  did  not  act. 

2  Kyd's  The  Spanish  Tragedy,  or  Hieronymo  is  Mad  Again. 

3  A  translation  of  Guarini's  II  Pastor  Fido. 

4  Joseph  Haines,  who  had  just  joined  the  King's   company. 
The  author  of  The  Life  of  the  Famous  Comedian,  Jo.  Haynes, 
containing  his  Comical  Exploits  and  Adventures  both  at  Home 
and  Abroad,  asserts  that  he  had  acted  under  Captain  Bedford 
"whilst  the  playhouse  in  Hatton  Garden  lasted."     "This,"  says 
Wheatley,  "would  seem  to  be  the  Nursery  alluded  to  by  Pepys" 
(Pepys's  Diary,  VII,  33  n.).     And  Pepys's  entry  for  April  23, 
1669,  seems  rather  to  confirm  than  to  contradict  this. 


308     PEPYS  ON  THE  RESTORATION  STAGE 
The  Nursery,  Lincoln's  Inn  Fields 

April  23,  1669.  [My  wife]  seeing  a  play  at  the 
New  Nursery,1  which  is  set  up  at  the  house  in  Lin- 
coln's Inn  Fields,  which  was  formerly  the  King's 
house. 


Details  of  the  Buildings 

July  2,  1661.  By  the  breaking  of  a  board  above 
our  heads1  we  had  a  gr£at  deal  of  dust  fell  into  the 
ladies'  necks  and  the  men's  hair  whicK  made  good 
sport. 

February  6,  1662-63.  Thence  to  Lincoln's  Inn 
Fields ;  .  .  .  I  walked  up  and  down,  and  looked  upon 
the  outside  of  the  new  theatre,2  now  a-building,  in 
Covent  Garden. 

May  8,  1663.  To  -the  Theatre  Roy  all3  being  the 
second  day  of  its  being  opened.  The  house  is  made 

1  Probably  used  by  Killigrew  after  the  Nursery  in  Hatton 
Garden,  which  gave  Haines  to  his  company,  was  closed  or  de- 
stroyed. At  least,  the  theatre  in  Lincoln's  Inn  Fields  would 
naturally  have  been  used  by  Killigrew,  as  his  company  had 
previously  played  there.  , 

1  At  Sir  William  D'Avenant's   "opera,"   otherwise  known  as 
the  Duke  of  York's  theatre,  on  "the  fourth  day"  after  it  had 
been  opened. 

2  The  "new  Theatre  in  Drury  Lane"  was  opened,  according 
to  Downes  (Roscius  Anglicanus,  p.  3),  on  "Thursday  in  Easter 
Week,  being  the  8th,  Day  of  April  1663,  With  the  Humorous 
Lieutenant";  according  to  Pep^«wi  May  7,  1663. 

3  The  Silent  Woman  at  the  '•  •?  Royal. 


THE  THEATRES  307 

with  extraordinary  good  contrivance,  and  yet  hath 
some  faults,  as  the  narrowness  of  the  passages  in  and 
out  of  the  pitt,  and  the  distance  from  the  stage  to  the 
boxes,  which  I  am  confident  cannot  hear;  but  for  all 
other  things  it  is  well,  only,  above  all,  the  musique 
being  below,  and  most  of  it  sounding  under  the  very 
stage,  there  is  no  hearing  of  the  bases  at  all,  nor  very 
well  of  the  trebles,  which  sure  must  be  mended. 

June  1, 1664*  Before  the  play  was  done,  it  fell  such 
a  storm  of  hayle,  that  we  in  the  middle  of  the  pit  were 
fain  to  rise;  and  all  the  house  in  a  disorder,  and 
so  ...  out. 

March  19,  1665-66.  Walked  to  the  King's  play- 
house, all  in  dirt,  they  being  altering  of  the  stage  to 
make  it  wider.  But  God  knows  when  they  will 
begin  to  act  again  ;4  but  my  business  4^ere  was  to  see 
the  inside  of  the  stage  and  all  the  tiring-rooms  and 
machines.  .  .  .  The  machines  are  fine,  and  the  paint- 
ings very  pretty. 

February  12,  1666-67.  [T.  Killigrew  tells  me] 
that  the  stage  is  now  by  his  pains  a  thousand  times 
better  and  more  glorious  than,  ever  heretofore.  Now, 
wax  candles5  and  many  of  them;  then,  not  above  3 
Jbs.  of  tallow:  now  all  things  civil,  no  rudeness  any- 
where; then,  as  in  a  bear-garden:  then  two  or  three 
fiddlers;  now,  nine  or  ten  of  the  best;  then,  nothing 

1      4  After  the  plague.     It  was  the  following  November  before 
the  theatres  were  regularly  open. 

5  "At  this  time  the  stage  was  lighted  from  above,  by  branches 
or  loops  of  candles  suspended  from  the  ceiling"  (R.  W.  Lowe, 
Thomas  Betterton,  1891  ed.,  p.; 54). 


308  PEPYS  ON  THE  RESTORATION  STAGE 

but  rushes  upon  the  ground,  and  every  thing  else 
mean;  and  now,  all  otherwise. 

May  1,  1668.  To  the  King's  playhouse,  and  there 
fcaw  "The  Surprizall":  and  a  disorder  in  the  pit  by 
its  raining  in,  from  the  cupola  at  top,  it  being  a  very 
foul  day. 


The  Seats 

January  19,  1660-61.  Here1  I  was  troubled  to  be 
seen  by  four  of  our  office  clerks,  which  sat  in  the  half- 
crown  box  and  I  in  the  Is.  6d.2 

1  At  the  King's  theatre. 

2  The  prices  of  seats  in  the  theatre  in  Pepys's  day,  as  we 
learn  from  the  Diary,  were  as  follows:  seats  in  boxes  (just  above 
the   pit),   four  shillings;   pit,  two   shillings,   six   pence;   middle 
gallery,  eighteen  pence ;  upper  gallery,  one  shilling.     Pepys  often 
sat  in  the  middle  gallery  during  the  earlier  years  of  his  theatre- 
going.     It  appears  from  this  statement  and  also  from  the  com- 
ment about  Moll  Davis    (December  21,   1668),  who  sat  "in  a 
box   over  the   King's   and  my  lady   Castlemayne's   head,"   that 
there  were  boxes  in  the  middle  gallery  as  well  as  just  above 
the  pit.    These  upper  boxes  were  probably  situated  at  the  centre 
of  the  middle  gallery.     From  the  Articles  of  Agreement,  dated 
November  5,  1660,  drawn  up  between  Sir  William  D'Avenant 
and   the   members    of   his    company   headed   by    Betterton    and 
Harris    (in  J.   O.   Halliwell-Phillipps,  A    Collection  of  Ancient 
Documents  respecting  the  Office  of  Master  of  the  Revels,  pp.  27- 
31),   we   learn   that   admission   to   the   projected   theatre,   later 
called  the  Duke's  house,  was  to  be  "by  Ballatine  or  tickettes 
soulled  for  all  doores  and  boxes."     D'Avenant  was  to  appoint 
"three  persons  to  receive  money  for  said  Tickettes  in  a  room 
adjoining  to  said  Theatre,"  while  the  actors  had  the  privilege 


THE  THEATRES  309" 

January  31,  1660-61.     To  the  Theatre,  and  there 
sat  in  the  pit  among  the  company  of  fine  ladys,  etc.;  % 
and  the  house  was  exceeding  full,  to  see  Argalus  and 
Parthenia. 

November  29, 1661.  To  the  Theatre,  but  it  was  so 
full  that  we  could  hardly  get  any  room,  so  he  went 
up  to  one  of  the  boxes,  and  I  into  the  ISd.  places,  and 
there  saw  "Love  at  first  sight." 

December  16,  1661.  To  the  Opera3  .  .  .  and  it 
being  the  first  time,  the  pay  was  doubled,  and  so  to 
save  money  my  wife  and  I  went  up  into  the  gallery, 
and  there  sat  and  saw  very  well. 

April  22,  1663.  It4  costing  me  four  half-crowns 
for  myself  and  company. 

i       October  19,  1667.    We  were  forced  to  go  into  one 

_of  the  upper  boxes,  at  4s.  a  piece,  which  is  the  first 

time  I  ever  sat  in  a  box  in  my  life.    And  in  the  same 

box  come,  by  and  by,  behind  me,  my  Lord  Barkeley 

[of  Stratton]  and  his  lady. 

December  30, 1667.  Sir  Philip  Carteret  would  fain 
have  given  me  my  going  into  a  play,  but  yet,  when  he 
come  to  the  door,  he  had  no  money  to  pay  for  himself, 
I  having  refused  to  accept  of  it  for  myself,  but  was 

of  appointing  two  or  three  "watchers"  of  the  money-taking. 
D'Avenant  reserved  to  himself  the  nomination  of  "half  the 
number  of  the  doore  keepers  necessary  for  the  receipt  of  the  said 
Tickettes  for  doores  and  Boxes,  the  Wardrobe  Keeper,  barber" 
etc. ;  and  he  also  stipulated  that  the  theatre  should  maintain  a 
private  box  for  Thomas  Killigrew,  the  rival  manager,  "sufficient 
to  conteine  sixe  persons"  who  were  to  use  it  free  of  charge. 

3  Cutter  of  Coleman  Street  was  being  played  there. 

4  Wit  without  Money  at  the  King's  theatre.     There  were  four 
in  the  "company." 


310  PEPYS  ON  THE  RESTORATION  STAGE 

fain ;  and  I  perceive  he  is  known  there,  and  do  run 
upon  the  score  for  plays,5  which  is  a  shame. 

January  l,jl667-68.  Here6  a  mighty  company  of 
citizens,  'prentices,  and  others;  and  it  makes  me 
observe,  that  when  I  begun  first  to  be  able  to  bestow 
a  play  on  myself,  I  do  not  remember  that  I  saw  so 
many  by  half  of  the  ordinary  'prentices  and  mean 
people  in  the  pit  at  2s.6d.  a-piece  as  now;  I  going  for 
several  years  no  higher  than  the  I2d.  and  then  the  ISd. 
places,  though  I  strained  hard  to  go  in  them  when  I 
did :  so  much  the  vanity  and  prodigality  of  the  age  is 
to  be  observed  in  this  particular. 
January  6,  1667-68.  The  house7  being  full,  was 

5  There  is  a  passage  in  Shadwell's  A    True   Widow   (1679), 
Act  II,  Sc.  I,  wffich  shows  how  this  and  other  customs  compli- 
cated the  duties  of  the  playhouse  door-keeper.     Several  ladies 
are  entering  the  theatre  accompanied  by  men.: 

"Door-keeper:  Pray,  Sir,  pay  me;  my  Masters  will  make  me 
pay  it. 

3  Man:  Impertinent  Rascal!  do  you  ask  me  for  money?    Take 
that,  Sirrah ! 

Door-Keeper:  Will  you  pay  me,  Sir? 

4  Man:  No  I  don't  intend  to  stay. 

Door-Keeper:  So  you  say  every  Day,  and  see  two  or  three 
Acts  for  nothing. 

4  Man:  I'll  break  your  Head,  you  Rascal! 

Door-keeper:  Pray,  Sir,  pay  me! 

3  Man :  Set  it  down ;  I  have  no  silver  about  me ;  or  bid  my  man 
pay  you. 

Theodosia:  What,  do  Gentlemen  run  on  Tick  for  Plays? 

Carlos:  As  familiarly  as  with  their  Taylors." 

6  At  Sir  Martin  Mar-all  at  the  Duke's  playhouse. 

7  The  Duke's  for  a  performance  of  The  Tempest. 


THE  THEATRES  311 

forced  to  carry  them  to  a  box,  which  did  cost  me  20s., 
besides  oranges. 

.  January  7, 1667-68.  To  look  for  them  and  there  by 
this  means,  for  nothing,  see  an  act  in  "The  Schoole  of 
Compliments"  at  the  Duke  of  York's  house. 

March  26, 1667-68.  To  the  Duke  of  York's  house, 
to  see  the  new  play,  called  "The  Man  is  the  Master." 
.  .  .  By  and  by  the  King  come ;  and  we  sat  just  under 
him,8  so  that  I  durst  not  turn  my  back  all  the  play. 

May  2, 1668.  To  the  Duke  of  York's  playhouse,  at 
ja  little  past  twelve,  to  get  a  good  place  in  the  pit, 
against  the  new  play,  and  there  setting  a  poor  man  to 
keep  my  place,9  I  out  .  .  .  and  so  back  again,  where 
I  find  the  house  quite  full. 

May  18, 1668.  To  the  King's  playhouse,  where  the 
doors  were  not  then  open;  but  presently  they  did 
open;  and  we  in,  and  find  many  people  already  come 
in,  by  private  ways  into  the  pit. 

February  15,1668-69.  To  White  Hall ;— and  .  .  . 
did  get  into  the  play,  .  .  .  "The  Five  Hours'  Adven- 
ture" ;  but  I  sat  so  far  I  could  not  hear  well,  nor  was 
there  any  pretty  woman  that  I  did  see,  but  my  wife, 
who  sat  in  my  Lady  Fox's  pew10  with  her. 

8  That  is,  in  the  pit,  just  below  the  King's  box. 

9  It  became  soon  after  this  a  common  custom  among  people  of 
fashion  to  send  their  servants  to  do  this  office  for  them. 

10  Evidently  a  current  name  for  a  seat  or  box  in  this  theatre. 


CHAPTER  XII 
STAGE  PRODUCTIONS 


CHAPTER  XII 
STAGE  PRODUCTIONS 


Scenery 

July  2,  1661.  The  scene1  opened;  which  is  indeed 
very  fine  and  magnificent. 

1  In  The  Siege  of  Rhodes  at  the  Duke's  house.  The  scenes 
were  designed  and  executed  by  John  Webb.  Of  this  production 
Downes  (Roscius  Anglicanus,  p.  20)  says  there  were  "New 
Scenes  and  Decorations,  being  the  first  that  e're  were  Intro- 
duc'd  in  England"  It  is  interesting  to  compare  with  Pepys's 
statements  the  following  comment  by  Richard  Flecknoe  in  A 
Short  Discourse  of  the  English  Drama  and  Stage  (1660?), 
attached  to  Love's  Kingdom,  A  Pastoral  Comedy  (1664):  "Now 
for  the  difference  betwixt  our  Theatres  and  those  of  former 
times,  they  were  but  plain  and  simple,  with  no  other  scenes, 
nor  Decorations  of  the  Stage,  but  onely  old  Tapestry,  and  had 
as  good  or  rather  better  than  any  we  have  now  ...  Of  this 
curious  Art  [stage  decoration]  the  Italians  (this  latter  age) 
are  the  greatest  masters,  the  French  good  proficients,  and  we  in 
England  only  Schollars  and  Learners  yet,  having  proceded  no 
further  than  to  bare  painting,  and  not  having  arrived  to  the 
stage  strewd  with  Rushes  (with  their  Habits  accordingly) 
whereas  ours  now  for  cost  and  ornament  are  arrived  at  the 
height  of  Magnificence.  .  .  .  For  Scenes  and  Machines,  they 
are  no  new  invention,  our  Masks  and  some  of  our  Playes  in 
former  times  (though  not  so  ordinary)  having  stupendious  won- 
ders of  your  great  Ingeniers,  especially  not  knowing  yet  how  to 
place  our  Lights,  for  the  more  advantage  and  illuminating  of 


316  PEPYS  ON  THE  RESTORATION  STAGE 

August  15,  1661.  To  ...  "The  Witts,"  never 
acted  yet  with  scenes.2 

August  24,  1661.  To  the  Opera,  and  there  saw 
"Hamlet,  Prince  of  Denmark,"  done  with  scenes  very 
well. 

June  13, 1663.  To  the  Royall  Theatre.  .  .  .  Here 
we  saw  "The  Faithful  Sheepheardesse,"  a  most  simple 
thing,  and  yet  much  thronged  after,  and  often  shown, 
but  it  is  only  for  the  scene's  sake,  which  is  very  fine 
indeed  and  worth  seeing. 

March  19,  1665-66.  To  the  King's  play-house,  all 
in  dirt,  they  being  altering  of  the  stage.  .  .  .  The 
machines  are  fine,  and  the  paintings  very  pretty. 

October  19, 1667.  At  the  King's  house,  .  .  .  forced 
to  go  into  one  of  the  upper  boxes ;  .  .  .  from  this  place 
the  scenes  do  appear  very  fine  indeed,  and  much 
better  than  in  the  pit. 

December  19,  1668.  A  fine  scene  of  the  Senate,3 
and  of  a  fight  that  ever  I  saw  in  my  life. 

January  7, 1668-69.  To  the  King's  playhouse  and 
there  saw  "The  Island  Princesse,"  .  .  .  and  a  good 
scene  of  a  town  on  fire. 

the  Scenes"  (Richard  Flecknoe's  A  Short  Discourse  of  the  Eng- 
lish Drama  and  Stage  (circa  1660)  reprinted  in  The  English 
Drama  and  Stage  under  the  Tudor  and  Stuart  Princes  1543- 
1664  in  the  Roxburghe  Library,  pp.  280-281). 

2  This  was  D'Avenant's  second  production  at  the  "Opera." 

3  In  Catiline  at  the  King's  theatre. 


STAGE  PRODUCTIONS  317 

Costumes 

March  23,  1660-61.  To  the  Red  Bull  .  .  .  up  to 
the  tireing-room,  where  strange  the  confusion  and 
disorder  that  there  is  among  them  in  fitting  them- 
selves, especially  here,  where  the  clothes  are  very 
poor. 

March  8,  1663-64.  The  garments  like  Romans1 
very  well.  .  .  .  But  at  the  beginning,  at  the  drawing 
up  of  the  curtaine,  there  was  the  finest  scene  of  the 
Emperor  and  his  people  about  him,  standing  in  their 
fixed  and  different  postures  in  their  Roman  habitts, 
above  all  that  ever  I  yet  saw  at  any  of  the  theatres. 

March  19,  1665-66.  But  to  see  their  clothes,2  and 
the  various  sorts,  and  what  a  mixture  of  things  there 
was;  here  a  wooden-leg,  there  a  ruff,  here  a  hobby- 
horse, there  a  crown,  would  make  a  man  split  him- 
self to  see  with  laughing;  and  particularly  Lacy's 
wardrobe,  and  Shotrell's.  But  then,  again,  to  think 

1  In  D'Avenant's  production  of  Heraclius  at  the  Duke's  house. 
Downes  frequently  praises  the  costuming  of  plays  here,  particu- 
larly of  The  Adventures  of  Five  Hours,  The  Impertinents,  or 
The  Sullen  Lovers,  Macbeth,  Love  and  Honour  and  Henry   V 
[Orrery's']  ;  for  the  last  two  he  says  that  the  King  and  Duke  of 
York  loaned  the  actors  their  Coronation  suits.     In  the  "Articles 
of   Agreement"   between  himself  and   his   company,   D'Avenant 
stipulates  that  he  shall  not  be  obliged  to  provide  out  of  the  share 
of  receipts   allowed  to   him   for   the   costumes    "eyther   Hattes, 
feathers,   Gloves,  ribbons,   sworde  beltes,  bandes,   stockinge,   or 
shoes  for  any  of  the  men  Actors"  (J.  O.  Halliwell-PhiJlipps,  A 
Collection  of  Ancient  Documents  respecting  the  Office  of  Master 
of  the  Revels,  p.  31). 

2  In  the  "tiring  room"  at  the  King's  theatre. 


318  PEPYS  ON  THE  RESTORATION  STAGE 

how  fine  they  show  on  the  stage  by  candlelight  and 
how  poor  things  they  are  to  look  now  too  near  hand, 
is  not  pleasant  at  all. 

August  17,  1667.  "Queen  Elizabeth's  Troubles" 
...  is  merely  a  shew,  only  shews  the  true  garbe  of 
the  Queen  in  those  days  just  as  we  see  Queen  Mary 
and  Queen  Elizabeth  painted. 

December  11,  1667.  The  King  gives  them  £500 
for  robes,8  there  being,  as  they  say,  to  be  sixteen 
scarlett  robes. 

May  11, 1668.  Had  the  pleasure  to  see  the  actors* 
in  their  several  dresses,  especially  the  seamen  and 
monster  which  were  very  droll. 

December  19, 1668.  The  least  diverting5  that  ever 
I  saw  any,  though  most  in  fine  clothes. 


Music  MACBETH 

April  19,  1667.  It  is  one  of  the  best  plays  for  a 
stage,  and  variety  of  dancing  and  musique,1  that  ever 
I  saw. 

3  For  Catiline  at  the  King's  theatre. 

4  In  The  Tempest  at  the  Duke's. 

5  Catiline. 

1  Downes  states  (Roscius  Anglicanus,  p.  33)  that  the  music 
for  D'Avenant's  version  of  Macbeth,  to  which  Pepys  is  here  pre- 
sumably referring,  was  written  by  Lock.  Maidment  and  Logan 
note  (The  Dramatic  Works  of  Sir  William  D'Avenant,  III,  237- 
238)  that  "the  music  in  Macbeth,  of  which  the  rude  and  wild 
excellence  cannot  be  surpassed,  has  been  attributed  by  some  to 
Henry  Purcell  and  not  to  Matthew  Lock,  whose  productions 


STAGE  PRODUCTIONS  319 

Music  THE  TEMPEST 

November  7,  1667.  The  most  innocent  play  that 
I  ever  saw ;  and  a  curious  piece  of  musique2  in  an  echo 
of  half  sentences,  the  echo  repeating  the  former  half, 
while  the  man  goes  on  to  the  latter;  which  is  mighty 
pretty. 


Music  THE  SIEGE  OF  RHODES 

June  28, 1660.  Among  other  things  I  was  pleased 
that  I  could  find  out  a  man  by  his  voice,  whom  I  had 
never  seen  before,  to  be  one  that  sang  behind  the 
curtaine  formerly  at  Sir  W.  Davenant's  opera.1 

December  6,  1665.  I  spent  the  afternoon  upon  a 
song2  of  Solyman's  words  to  Roxalana  that  I  have 
set. 

January  22,  1666-67.  There  come  to  me  Darnell 
the  fiddler,  one  of  the  Duke's  house,  and  brought  me 
a  set  of  lessons.  ...  I  did  give  him  a  crowne  for 

otherwise  are  far  inferior,  while  to  Purcell's  peculiar  style  it 
bears  a  closer  resemblance" — though  the  fact  that  Purcell  was 
born  in  1658  would  seem  to  conflict  with  this  even  if  D'Avenant's 
Macbeth  should  be  assigned  to  a  date  as  late  as  1672. 

2  Evidently  Ferdinand's  song  in  Act  III,  Sc.  4>,  of  the  version 
by  Dryden  and  D'Avenant, — the  one  Pepys  saw, — the  music 
for  which  was  written  by  John  Bannister. 

1  This  "opera"  might  be  either  The  Siege  of  Rhodes  (1656)  or 
The  Cruelty  of  the  Spaniards  in  Peru  (1658). 

2  The  song  beginning  "Beauty  retire,"  in  The  Siege  of  Rhodes, 
Part  II,  Act  IV,  Sc.  2. 


320  PEPYS  ON  THE  RESTORATION  STAGE 

them,  and  did  enquire  after  the  musique3  of  "The 
Siege  of  Rhodes,"  which,  he  tells  me,  he  can  get  me, 
which  I  am  mighty  glad  of. 

February  13,  1666-67.  Discoursed  most  about 
plays  and  the  Opera,  where,  among  other  vanities, 
Captain  Cooke,4  had  the  arrogance  to  say  that  he  was 
fain  to  direct  Sir  W.  Davenant  in  the  breaking  of 
his  verses  into  such  and  such  lengths,  according  as 
would  be  fit  for  musick,  and  how  he  used  to  swear  at 
Davenant,  and  command  him  that  way,  when  W. 
Davenant  would  be  angry,  and  find  fault  with  this  or 
that  note — but  a  vain  coxcomb  I  perceive  he  is, 
though  he  sings  and  composes  so  well.  .  .  .  I  do  think, 
and  he  [Dr.  Clerke]  confesses,  "The  Siege  of 
Rhodes"  as  good  as  ever  was  writ. 


Music  THE  VIRGIN  MARTYR 

February  27,  1667-68.  But  that  which  did  please 
me  beyond  any  thing  in  the  whole  world  was  the  wind- 
musique  when  the  angel  comes  down,1  which  is  so 

3  The  music  for  The  Siege  of  Rhodes,  in  which  Lock,  Lawes, 
Cooke,  and  Coleman  each  had  a  hand,  has  unfortunately  dis- 
appeared. 

4  Henry  Cooke,  who  had  been  a  captain  in  the  Royal  army, 
became  prominent  in  music  after  the  Restoration,  and  was  made 
Master  of  the  Children  of  the  Chapel  Royal. 

1  The  reference  is  apparently  to  Sc.  1,  Act  V,  of  this  play  by 
Massinger  and  Dekker.  Sir  Frederick  Bridge  states  that  the 
instrument  here  used  was  evidently  the  flageolet.  (Cf.  Samuel 
Pepys,  Lover  of  Musique,  pp.  7-8.) 


STAGE  PRODUCTIONS  321 

sweet  that  it  ravished  me,  and  indeed,  in  a  word,  did 
wrap  up  my  soul  so  that  it  made  me  really  sick,  just 
as  I  have  formerly  been  when  in  love  with  my  wife; 
that  neither  then,  nor  all  the  evening  going  home,  and 
at  home,  I  was  able  to  think  of  any  thing,  but  re- 
mained all  night  transported,  so  as  I  could  not  believe 
that  ever  any  musick  hath  that  real  command  over 
the  soul  of  a  man  as  this  did  upon  me ;  and  makes  me 
resolve  to  practice  wind-musique,  and  to  make  my 
wife  do  the  like. 

March  2,  1667-68.  To  the  King's  house  to  see  the 
"Virgin  Martyr"  again,  which  do  mightily  please  me, 
but  above  all  the  musique  at  the  coming  down  of  the 
angel,  which  at  this  hearing  the  second  time,  do  still 
commend  me  as  nothing  ever  did,  and  the  other 
musique  is  nothing  to  it. 


Music  GENERAL  REFERENCES 

November  20, 1660.  I  found  my  Lord  [Sandwich] 
in  bed  late,  he  having  been  with  the  King,  Queen,  and 
Princesse  at  the  Cockpit  all  night,  where  .  .  . 
the  King  did  put  a  great  affront  upon  Singleton's 
musique,1  he  bidding  them  stop  and  bade  the  French 
musique  play,  which,  my  Lord  says,  do  much  outdo 
all  ours. 

May  8, 1663.    Above  all,  the  musique  being  below,2 

1  John  Singleton  (p-1686),  performer  on  the  sackbut,  violin, 
and  flute. 

2  At  the  recently  opened  Theatre  Royal  in  Drury  Lane. 


322  PEPYS  ON  THE  RESTORATION  STAGE 

and  most  of  it  sounding  under  the  very  stage,  there  is 
no  hearing  of  the  bases  at  all,  nor  very  well  of  the 
trebles,  which  sure  must  be  mended. 

February  12,  1666-67.  He3  tells  me  that  he  hath 
gone  several  times,  eight  or  ten  times,  .  .  .  hence  to 
Rome  to  hear  good  musique;  so  much  he  loves  it, 
though  he  never  did  sing  or  play  a  note.  That  he 
hath  endeavoured  in  the  late  King's  time,  and  in  this, 
to  introduce  good  musique,  but  he  never  could  do  it, 
there  never  having  been  any  musique  here  better  than 
ballads.  Nay,  says  "Hermitt  poore"  and  "Chevy 
Chese"4  was  all  the  musique  we  had ;  and  yet  no  ordi- 
nary fiddlers  get  so  much  money  as  ours  do  here, 
which  speaks  our  rudenesse  still.  That  he  hath  gath- 
ered our  Italians  from  several  Courts  in  Christen- 
dome,  to  come  to  make  a  concert  for  the  King. 

February  26, 1668-69.  The  emptiness  of  the  house5 
took  away  our  pleasure  a  great  deal,  though  I  liked 
it  the  better,  for  that  I  plainly  discern  the  musick  is 
the  better  by  how  much  the  house  the  emptier. 

3  Thomas  Killigrew,  manager  of  the  King's  theatre. 

4  The  ballads  referred  to  are — Like  hermit  poor  in  pensive 
place  obscure   (before   1593),  music  for  which  was  written  by 
Alfonso   Ferrabosco,  the  younger,   and  published  in  his  Ay  res 
(1609);  and  Chevy  Chase  (1500?),  printed  in  1719  by  Thomas 
Hearne  in  an  edition  of  William  of  Newbury's  Chronicle. 

5  The  King's  theatre,  at  which  Fletcher's  The  Faithful  Shep- 
herdess was  being  given.     Cf.  p.  86  for  Pepys's  praise  of  the 
performance  of  a  "French  Eunuch,"  one  of  Killigrew's  imported 
musicians  in  this  play.      Pepys  also  commends  the  singing  of 
Gosnell,  Mrs.  Knepp,  and  Henry  Harris  in  various  plays. 


STAGE  PRODUCTIONS  323 

Advertising 

March  24,  1662.  I  went  to  see  if  any  play  was 
acted,  and  I  found  none  upon  the  post,1  it  being  Pas- 
sion week. 

July  28,  1664.  Seeing  "The  Bondman"  upon  the 
posts,  ...  I  went  thither. 

December  25,  1666.  Walked  alone  on  foot  to  the 
Temple  .  .  .  thinking  to  have  seen  a  play  all  alone; 
but  there  missing  of  any  bills,  concluded  there  was 
none. 

March  7,  1666-67.  Little  Mis.  Davis  did  dance  a 
jig  after  the  end  of  the  play,2  and  there  telling  the 
next  day's  play. 

April  20,  1667.  To  King's  house,  but  there  found 
the  bill  torn  down  and  no  play  acted. 


Theatres  and  Fasts 

February  23,  1662-63.  To  Court  .  .  .  and  saw 
"The  Wilde  Gallant"  ...  the  last  play  that  is  likely 
to  be  acted  at  Court  before  Easter  because  of  the 
Lent  coming  in. 

1  At  this  time  performances  at  the  theatres  were  advertised  in 
playbills  displayed  on  the  outside  of  the  theatres   and  on  the 
posts  in  the  streets.    A  facsimile  of  the  playbill  for  the  perform- 
ance of  The  Mourning  Bride,  February  27,   1700,  is  given  in 
R.  W.  Lowe's  Thomas  Betterton,  1891  ed.,  p.  14. 

2  The  English  Princess  at  the  Duke's  house.     It  was  customary 
to  announce  the  second  performance — of  a  play  which  had  suc- 
ceeded— at  the  end  of  the  first  day's  performance. 


324  PEPYS  ON  THE  RESTORATION  STAGE 

March  24,  1662-63.  I  went  to  see  if  any  play  was 
acted,  and  I  found  none  upon  the  post,  it  being  Pas- 
sion week.1 

October  15,  1666.  She  [Lady  Carteret]  cries  out 
of  the  vices  of  the  Court,  and  how  they  are  going  to 
set  up  plays  already;  and  how  the  next  day  after  the 
late  great  fast,  the  Duchesse  of  York  did  give  the 
King  and  the  Queene  a  play.  Nay,  she  told  me  that 
they  have  heretofore  had  plays  at  Court  the  very 
nights  before  the  fast  for  the  death  of  the  late  King. 

March  1,  1666-67.  That  it  were  not  Friday  (on 
which  in  Lent  there  are  no  plays)  I  had  carried  her 
to  a  play. 

March  21,  1666-67.  To  the  Duke  of  York's  play- 
house where  unexpectedly  I  come  to  see  only  the 
young  men  and  women  of  the  house  act ;  they  having 
liberty  to  act  for  their  own  profit  on  Wednesdays  and 
Fridays  this  Lent.2 

1  In  a  letter  to  Lord  Cornebery,  from  London,  February  9, 
1664-65,    Evelyn    deplores    "The    frequency    of    our    theatrical 
pastimes  during  that  indiction  [Lent]    .    .    .   so  as  the  ladys  & 
the  gallants  come  reaking  from  the  play  late  on  Saturday  night  to 
their  Sonday  devotions"  (Diary,  Wheatley  ed.,  II,  pp.  301-302). 

2  Evidently  in  spite  of  the  custom,  noted  above,  of  having  no 
plays   on   Fridays   in   Lent.      Genest    (I,    152)    comments:    "It 
appears  from  Pepys   .    .    .  that  the  young  actors  of  the  Duke's 
Company   were    allowed   to    act    for    their    own    advantage    on 
Wednesdays  and  Fridays  in  Lent — and  from  the  Epilogue  to 
the  Rival  Kings  that  the  young  performers  of  the  King's  Theatre 
had  a  similar  privilege." 


BIBLIOGRAPHY 


BIBLIOGRAPHY 


THE  CHIEF  BRITISH  PERIODICALS  CONTAINING 
REVIEWS  COMMENTING  ON  THE  THEATRI- 
CAL MATERIAL  IN  LORD  BRAYBROOKE'S 
EDITION  (1825)  OF  THE  MEMOIRS  OF 
SAMUEL  PEPYS,  ESQ. 

The  Eclectic  Review  (July,  1825),  Vol.  XXIV,  pp.  75-88. 

The  Edinburgh  Review  (November,  1825),  Vol.  XLIII,  pp. 
23-54.  Review  by  Francis  Jeffrey. 

The  Gentleman's  Magazine  (September,  1825),  Vol.  XCV, 
pp.  233-240. 

The  Ladies  Magazine,  or  Mirror  of  the  Belles-Lettres  (July, 
1825),  Vol.  VI,  pp.  394-397. 

The  London  Literary  Gazette  (June  18- August  13,  1825), 
Nos.  439-447. 

The  London  Magazine  (December,  1825),  New  Series,  Vol. 
Ill,  pp.  536-540. 

The  Monthly  Repository  of  Theology  and  General  Litera- 
ture (August,  1825),  Vol.  XX,  pp.  449-454. 

The  Museum  of  Foreign  Literature  and  Science  (July-De- 
cember, 1825),  Vol.  VII,  pp.  247-262  (from  The 
Monthly  Review)  ;  (March,  1826),  New  Series,  Vol.  I, 
pp.  231-242  (from  The  British  Critic). 

The  New  Monthly  Magazine  and  Literary  Journal  (Part 
II,  1825),  Vol.  XIV,  pp.  97-110. 


328  PEPYS  ON  THE  RESTORATION  STAGE 

The  Quarterly  Review  (March,  1826),  Vol.  XXXIII,  pp. 

281-314.     Review  by  Sir  Walter  Scott. 
The  Westminster  Review  (October,  1825),  Vol.  IV,  pp.  408- 

456. 


II 
EDITIONS  OF  PEPYS'S  DIARY 

Memoirs  of  Samuel  Pepys,  Esq.,  F.R.S.,  Secretary  to 
the  Admiralty  in  the  Reigns  of  Charles  II  and  James 
II,  comprising  his  Diary  from  1659  to  1669  deciphered 
by  the  Rev.  John  Smithy  A.B.,  from  the  Original  Short- 
hand MS.  in  the  Pepysian  Library,  and  a  Selection  from 
his  private  Correspondence.  Edited  by  Richard,  Lord 
Braybrooke.  2  vols.  1825.  2d  ed.  5  vols.  1828.1 
3d  ed.,  with  additions  and  corrections,  5  vols.  1848-49. 
4th  ed.,  with  considerable  additions,  4  vols.  1853.  5th 
ed.  4  vols.  1854.  6th  ed.,  with  additions  and  im- 
provements (Bohn's  Historical  Library),  4  vols.  1858. 
An  illustrated  reproduction  of  Lord  Braybrooke's  edi- 
tion by  Charles  Curtis  Bigelow,  4  vols.  Philadelphia. 
1906.  Lord  Braybrooke's  edition,  with  a  note  by 
Richard  Garnett  (Everyman's  Library),  2  vols.  Lon- 
don and  New  York.  1906.  (Several  re-issues.) 

Diary  and  Correspondence  of  Samuel  Pepys,  Esq.,  F.R.S. 
from  his  MS.  cypher  in  the  Pepysian  Library,  with  a 
Life  and  Notes  by  Richard,  Lord  Braybrooke.  De- 
ciphered with  additional  notes  by  Rev.  My  nor  s  Bright, 
M.A.  6  vols.  1875-79.  Limited  ed.  10  vols.  New 
York.  1884. 

i  If  not  otherwise  stated,  the  place  of  publication  is  London. 


BIBLIOGRAPHY  329 

The  Diary  of  Samuel  Pepys,  M.A.,  F.R.S.,  Transcribed  from 
the  Shorthand  MS.  in  the  Pepysian  Library,  Magda- 
lene College,  Cambridge,  by  Rev.  Mynors  Bright,  with 
Lord  Braybrooke's  Notes.  Edited  with  additions  by 
Henry  B.  Wheatley.  8  vols.  1893-96.  Vol.  IX, 
Index.  1899.  Supplementary  volume,  Pepysiana  or 
Additional  Notes  on  the  Particulars  of  Pepys's  Life 
and  on  Some  Passages  in  the  Diary,  with  Appendixes. 
1899.  Smaller  edition  in  8  vols.,  1904-05  (without 
Pepysiana). 

A  Bicentenary  (St.  Olave)  edition,  a  reproduction  of  the 
above,  with  an  introduction  by  H.  B.  Wheatley.  18 
vols.  New  York.  1903. 


Ill 

WORKS  RELATING  TO  PEPYS  AS  A  DRAMATIC 
HISTORIAN 

Anonymous.    Pepys  at  the  Play.    In  The  Theatre,  April  1, 

1884,  Vol.  Ill,  pp.  201-206. 
Bridge,  Sir  Frederick.     Samuel  Pepys,  Lover  of  Musique. 

1903. 
Hadden,  J.  Cuthbert.     Samuel  Pepys.     In  The  Fortnightly 

Review,  May  1,  1903,  Vol.  LXXIII,  pp.  911-917. 
Hueffer,  Francis.    Mr.  Pepys  the  Musician.     In  Italian  and 

Other  Studies.     1883. 
Hunt,  Leigh.     Dramatic  Essays.     Ed.  with  notes  and  an 

introduction  by  William  Archer  and  Robert  W.  Lowe. 

1894. 
Johnson,  Charles  F.     Shakespeare  and  his  Critics.     Boston. 

1909. 


330  PEPYS  ON  THE  RESTORATION  STAGE 

Lee,  Sidney.  Pepys  and  Shakespeare.  In  Shakespeare  and 
the  Modern  Stage,  with  other  Essays.  New  York. 
1906. 

Lounsbury,  Thomas  R.  Shakespeare  as  a  Dramatic  Artist. 
New  York  and  London.  1901. 

Moorhouse,  E.  Hallam.  Samuel  Pepys,  Administrator, 
Observer,  Gossip.  1909. 

Palmer,  John.    The  Comedy  of  Manners.    1913. 

Stevenson,  Robert  Louis.  Samuel  Pepys.  In  Familiar 
Studies  of  Men  and  Books.  1882. 

Wheatley,  Henry  B.  Evelyn  and  Pepys.  In  The  Cam- 
bridge History  of  English  Literature,  Vol.  VIII.  Cam- 
bridge. 1912. 

Wheatley,  Henry  B.  Samuel  Pepys  and  the  World  he  Lived 
In.  1880.  Several  re-issues. 


IV 

WORKS  DEALING  WITH  THE   STAGE   IN  THE 
DECADE  COVERED  BY  PEPYS'S  DIARY 

Adams,  W.  Davenport.  A  Dictionary  of  the  Drama  .  .  . 
Vol.  I,  A-G.  1904. 

Adams,  W.  H.  Davenport.  The  Merry  Monarch,  or  Eng- 
land under  Charles  II:  Its  Art,  Literature,  and  Society. 
2  vols.  1885. 

Albright,  Victor  E.  The  Shales perian  Stage  [Chapter  IV, 
Some  Principles  of  Restoration  Staging].  New  York. 
1909. 

Arber,  E.  The  Term  Catalogues,  1668-1709.  .  .  .  A  Con- 
temporary Bibliography  of  English  Literature  in  the 
reigns  of  Charles  II,  James  II,  William  and  Mary,  and 
Anne.  Ed.,  E.  Arber.  3  vols.  1903-06. 


BIBLIOGRAPHY  331 

Baker,  H.  Barton.  History  of  the  London  Stage  and  its 
Famous  Players  (1576-1903).  London  and  New 
York.  1904. 

Beljame,  Alexandre.  Le  Public  et  les  Hommes  de  Lettres  en 
Angleterre  au  dix-huitieme  Siecle,  1660-1744-  2d  ed. 
Paris.  1897. 

Besant,  Sir  Walter.  London  in  the  Time  of  the  Stuarts. 
1903. 

Betterton,  Thomas.  The  History  of  the  English  Stage 
from  the  Restauration  to  the  Present  Time,  including 
the  Lives,  Characters  and  Amours  of  the  most  Eminent 
Actors  and  Actresses.  1741. 

Biographia  Dramatica;  or,  A  Companion  to  the  Playhouse. 
.  .  .  Originally  compiled,  to  the  year  1764*,  by  David 
Erskine  Baker.  .  .  .  Continued  thence  to  1782,  by 
Isaac  Reed,  F.A.S.  And  brought  down  to  the  End  of 
November  1811  ...  by  Stephen  Jones.  3  vols.  1812. 

Boulton,  William  B.  The  Amusements  of  Old  London.  2 
vols.  1901. 

Brooke,  C.  F.  Tucker.     The  Tudor  Drama.    Boston.     1911. 

The  Cambridge  History  of  English  Literature.  Ed.,  A.  W. 
Ward  and  A.  R.  Waller.  Vol.  VIII  [Chapters  V,  VI, 
and  VII  by  F.  E.  Schelling,  Charles  Whibley,  and  A.  T. 
Bartholomew,  respectively].  Cambridge.  1912. 

Canfield,  Dorothea  Frances.  Corneille  and  Racine  in  Eng- 
land: a  Study  of  the  English  Translations  of  the  two 
Corneilles  and  Racine,  with  especial  reference  to  their 
Presentation  on  the  English  Stage.  New  York  and 
London.  1904. 

Charlanne,  L.  L' Influence  Francaise  en  Angleterre  au  dix- 
septieme  Siecle.  Paris.  1906. 

Chase,  L.  N.    The  English  Heroic  Play.    New  York.     1903. 

[Chetwood,  William  Rufus.]  The  British  Theatre,  contain- 
ing the  Lives  of  the  English  Dramatic  Poets,  with  an 


332  PEPYS  ON  THE  RESTORATION  STAGE 

Account  of  all  their  Plays,  together  with  the  Lives  of 
most  of  the  Principal  Actors,  as  well  as  Poets.  To 
which  is  prefixed  a  Short  View  of  the  Rise  and  Progress 
of  the  English  Stage.  Dublin.  1750. 

Cibber,  Colley.  An  Apology  for  the  Life  of  Mr.  Colley 
Gibber.  A  new  edition,  with  notes  and  supplement  by 
Robert  W.  Lowe.  2  vols.  1889. 

[Collier,  John  Payne.]  Punch  and  Judy,  accompanied  by 
...  an  Account  of  its  Origin,  and  of  Puppet  Plays  in 
England.  6th  ed.  1873. 

Cunningham,  Peter.  The  Story  of  Nell  Gwyn  and  the  Say- 
ings of  Charles  the  Second.  .  .  .  With  introduction, 
additional  notes,  and  a  life  of  the  author,  by  Henry 
B.  Wheatley.  1903. 

D'Avenant,  Sir  William.  The  Dramatic  Works  of  Sir  Wil- 
liam D'Avenant,  with  prefatory  memoir  and  notes  [by 
James  Maidment  and  W.  H.  Logan].  5  vols.  Edin- 
burgh and  London.  1872-74. 

Davies,  Thomas.  Dramatic  Miscellanies:  Consisting  of 
Critical  Observations  on  several  Plays  of  Shakspeare 
.  .  .  with  Anecdotes  of  Dramatic  Poets,  Actors,  fyc. 
3  vols.  1784.  [Vol.  II  dated  1783.] 

Dibdin,  C.  A  Complete  History  of  the  English  Stage.  5 
vols.  1800. 

Dictionary  of  National  Biography.  Ed.,  Leslie  Stephen  and 
Sidney  Lee.  Revised  ed.  22  vols.  London  and  New 
York.  1908-09. 

Dobson,  Austin.  Miscellanies  [Chapter  VIII,  Old  White- 
hall]. New  York.  1899. 

Doran,  Dr.  "Their  Majesties9  Servants"  Annals  of  the 
English  Stage  from  Thomas  Betterton  to  Edmund 
Kean.  Edited  and  revised  by  Robert  W.  Lowe.  3  vols. 
1888. 


BIBLIOGRAPHY  333 

[Downes,  John.]  Roscius  Anglicanus,  or,  An  Historical 
Review  of  the  Stage,  from  1660  to  1706.  A  Facsimile 
Reprint  of  the  Rare  Original  of  1708.  With  an  his- 
torical preface  by  Joseph  Knight.  1886. 

Dryden,  John.  The  Works  of  John  Dryden,  illustrated  with 
Notes,  historical,  critical,  and  explanatory,  and  a  Life 
of  the  Author,  by  Sir  Walter  Scott,  Bart.  Revised  and 
corrected  by  George  Saintsbury.  18  vols.  Edinburgh 
[Vols.  XV-XVIII,  London].  1882-93. 

Evelyn,  John.  Diary  of  John  Evelyn,  Esq.,  F.R.S.  .  .  . 
Edited  from  the  original  MSS.  by  William  Bray,  F.S.A. 
Ed.,  Henry  B.  Wheatley.  4  vols.  1906. 

Fitzgerald,  Percy.  A  New  History  of  the  English  Stage 
from  the  Restoration  to  the  Liberty  of  the  Theatres  in 
Connection  with  the  Patent  Houses.  2  vols.  1882. 

Fleay,  Frederick  Gard.  A  Biographical  Chronicle  of  the 
English  Drama,  1559-1642.  2  vols.  1891. 

Gait,  John.    The  Lives  of  the  Players.    2  vols.     1831. 

[Genest,  John.]  Some  Account  of  the  English  Stage,  from 
the  Restoration  in  1660  to  1830.  10  vols.  Bath. 
1832. 

[Halliwell-Phillipps,  J.  O.]  A  Collection  of  Ancient  Docu- 
.  ments  respecting  the  Office  of  the  Master  of  the  Revels, 
and  other  Papers  relating  to  early  English  Theatres. 
1870. 

Halliwell  [-Phillipps],  J.  O.  A  Dictionary  of  Old  English 
Plays,  existing  either  in  Print  or  in  Manuscript,  from 
the  earliest  Times  to  the  Close  of  the  Seventeenth  Cen- 
tury; including  also  Notices  of  Latin  Plays  written  by 
English  Authors  during  the  same  Period.  1860. 

Hamilton,  Count  Anthony.  Memoirs  of  the  Count  de  Gra- 
mont,  containing  the  Amorous  History  of  the  English 
Court  under  the  Reign  of  Charles  II.  Ed.,  Henry 
Vizetelly.  2  vols.  1889. 


334  PEPYS  ON  THE  RESTORATION  STAGE 

Hazlitt,  W.  C.     Collections  and  Notes.     1876. 

[Hazlitt,  W.  C.]  The  English  Drama  and  Stage  under  the 
Tudor  and  Stuart  Princes,  1543-1664,  illustrated  by  a 
Series  of  Documents,  Treatises,  and  Poems.  The  Rox- 
burghe  Library.  1869. 

Hazlitt,  W.  C.  A  Manual  for  the  Collector  and  Amateur 
of  Old  English  Plays.  Edited  from  the  material 
formed  by  Kirkman,  Langbaine,  Downes,  Oldys,  and 
Halliwell-Phillipps,  with  extensive  additions  and  correc- 
tions. 1892. 

Ingleby,  C.  M.  Shakespeare9s  Centurie  of  Prayse,  being 
Materials  for  a  History  of  Opinion  on  Shakespeare  and 
his  Works,  Culled  from  Writers  of  the  first  Century 
after  his  Rise.  1874. 

Kilbourne,  Frederick  W.  Alterations  and  Adaptations  of 
Shakespeare.  Boston.  1906. 

Langbaine,  Gerard.  An  Account  of  the  English  Dramatick 
Poets,  or,  some  Observations  and  Remarks  on  the  Lives 
and  Writings,  of  all  Those  that  have  published 
either  Comedies,  Tragedies,  Tragi-Comedies,  Pastorals, 
Masques,  Interludes,  Farces,  or  Opera's  in  the  English 
tongue.  Oxford.  1691. 

Langbaine,  Gerard.  The  Lives  and  Characters  of  the  Eng- 
lish Dramatick  Poets.  .  .  .  Improved  and  continued 
...  by  a  careful  hand  [Charles  Gildon].  [1699.] 

Lowe,  Robert  W.  Thomas  Betterton.  2d  ed.  1891.  [Vol. 
II  of  Eminent  Actors  series.] 

Lowe,  Robert  W.  A  Bibliographical  Account  of  English 
Theatrical  Literature  from  the  earliest  Times  to  the 
present  Day.  1888. 

Magnin,  Charles.  Histoire  des  Marionettes  en  Europe  depuis 
L'Antiquite  jusqu'a  nos  Jours.  \_Livre  Sixieme,  Les 
Marionettes  en  Angleterre.~]  2d  ed.  Paris.  1862. 


BIBLIOGRAPHY  335 

Malone,  Edmond.  Historical  Account  of  the  Rise  and  Pro- 
gress of  the  English  Stage  and  the  Economy  and 
Usages  of  our  Ancient  Theatres.  In  Malone's  edition 
of  The  Plays  and  Poems  of  William  Shakspeare,  Vol. 
I,  Part  II.  1790. 

Mantzius,  Karl.  A  History  of  Theatrical  Art,  in  Ancient 
and  Modern  Times.  With  an  introduction  by  William 
Archer.  Authorized  translation  by  Louise  von  Cossel. 
Vol.  V  [pp.  306-337,  The  Betterton  Period].  1909. 

Molloy,  J.  F.  Famous  Plays,  with  a  Discourse  by  Way  of 
Prologue  on  the  Playhouses  of  the  Restoration.  1886. 

Nettleton,  George  Henry.  English  Drama  of  the  Restora- 
tion and  Eighteenth  Century  ( 1 642-1 780  ) .  New  York. 
1914. 

de  Neuville,  Lemercier.  Histoire  Anecdotique  des  Mario- 
nettes Modernes.  Avec  une  preface  de  Jules  Claretie. 
Paris.  1892. 

Oliver,  D.  E.  The  English  Stage:  its  Origins  and  Modern 
Developments:  A  Critical  and  Historical  Study.  2d 
ed.  1912. 

Parry,  C.  Hubert  H.  The  Music  of  the  Seventeenth  Cen- 
tury. In  The  Oxford  History  of  Music,  Vol.  III. 
Oxford.  1902. 

Schelling,  Felix  E.  Elizabethan  Drama,  1558-1642.  2 
vols.  Boston.  1908. 

Schelling,  Felix  E.  English  Drama.  New  York.  1914. 
[In  The  Channels  of  English  Literature  series.] 

Shadwell,  T.  Works.  With  a  prefatory  memoir  by  his 
son.  4  vols.  1720. 

Sharp,  R.  Farquharson.  A  Short  History  of  the  English 
Stage  from  its  Beginnings  to  the  Summer  of  the  Year 
1908.  London  and  New  York.  1909. 

Sheppard,  Edgar.  The  Old  Royal  Palace  of  Whitehall. 
1902. 


336  PEPYS  ON  THE  RESTORATION  STAGE 

Thorndike,  Ashley  H.  Tragedy.  Boston.  1908.  [In  The 
Types  of  English  Literature  series.] 

Ward,  Adolphus  William.  A  History  of  English  Dramatic 
Literature  to  the  Death  of  Queen  Anne.  New  and  re- 
vised ed.  3  vols.  London  and  New  York.  1899. 

Wheatley,  Henry  B.  London  Past  and  Present.  3  vols. 
1891. 

Wilkes,  [Saul  Derrick].  A  General  View  of  the  Stage. 
1759. 

[Wright,  James.]  Historia  Histrionica:  An  Historical 
Account  of  the  English  Stage,  shewing  the  Ancient 
Uses,  Improvement,  and  Perfection  of  Dramatic  Repre- 
sentations, in  this  Nation.  In  a  Dialogue  of  Plays  and 
Players.  1699.  Reprinted  in  Dodsley's  A  Select  Col- 
lection of  Old  English  Plays,  ed.,  W.  C.  Hazlitt,  vol. 
XV.  1876. 


INDEX 


INDEX  OF  NAMES  AND  TITLES 

Actor's  Remonstrance,  The,  207 

Adventures  of  Five  Hours,  The,  20,  23,  25,  32,  73,  138,  192-4 

Aglaura,  127 

Albumazar,  128-9 

Alchemist,  The,  28,  42,  109,  128 

All  Mistaken,  or  The  Mad  Couple,  31,  43,  47,  163-4 

All's  Lost  by  Lust,  121 

Angell,  128,  211 

Annals  of  the  English  Stage,  see  under  Doran 

Annus  Miribilis,  266 

Antipodes,  The,  101 

Apology  for  the  Life  of  Mr.  Colley  Gibber,  see  under  Gibber 

Appius  and  Virginia,  137 

Arcadia,  105 

Archer,  William,  6 

Argalus  and  Parthenia,  44,  105-6 

Arlington,  Lord,  189 

Baker,  H.  B.,  232,  290,  298,  299,  301,  304 

Banks,  John,  231 

Bannister,  John,  75,  185,  319 

Bartholomew  Fair,  32,  109-11,  207-8 

Batten,  Martha,  82 

Beaumont,  Francis,  10,  27,  28,  81-101 

Bedford,  Captain,  304,  305 

Beeston,  William,  73,  161,  171,  212 

Beggars'  Bush,  The,  41,  81-2 

Behn,  Aphra,  156 

Bellasses,  H.,  266,  293 


340  INDEX 

Bennet,  "Lady,"  222 

Berkeley,  Sir  William,  81 

Berkshire,  Lord,  241 

Bernbaum,  Ernest,  156,  182 

Betterton,  Mary  Saunderson,  42,  65,  68,  70,  71,  74,   117,   129, 

134,  139,  143,  156,  157,  177,  179,  184,  191,  193,  197,  232, 

237-8 
Betterton,  Thomas,  21,  22,  23,  28,  44,  45,  65,  66,  67,  68,  70, 

74,  77,  91,  92,  116,  117,  120,  129,  137,  138,  139,  141,  142, 

143,  146,  157,  177,  178,  179,  180,  184,  187,  191,  193,  197, 

212-5,  232,  295,  308 

Biographia  Dramatica,  175,  200,  201,  237 
Bird,  Theophilus,  126,  215 
Black  Prince,  The,  29,  172-4 

Bloody  Brother,  The,  or  Rollo,  Duke  of  Normandy,  95-6 
Bondman,  The,  28,  42,  116-7 
Boutel,  Mrs.,  85,  92,  96 
Braybrooke,  Lord,  5,  6 

Brennoralt,  or  The  Discontented  Colonel,  127-8 
Bridge,  Sir  Frederick,  320 
Bright,  Mynors,  12 
Bristol,  Earl  of,  137-8,  193 
Brome,  Alexander,  263 
Brome,  Richard,  20,  25,  101-3,  257 
Brooke,  C.  F.  Tucker,  130,  202 
Brouncker,  Lord,  149,  249,  256 
Buckhurst,  Lord,  75,  201,  245,  246,  280 
Buckingham,  Duke  of,  29,  53,  83,  134,  270,  280 
Burt,  Nicholas,  67,  73,  85,  88,  95,  96,  109,  111,  113,  115,  148, 

151,  173,  185,  215-6 
Bussy  D'Ambois,  103 
Butler,  Samuel,  223 

Calderon,  137,  192 

Cambridge  History  of  English  Literature,  The,  12,  165 

Canfield,  D.  F.,  197,  199 

Cardinal,  The,  121-2,  224 


INDEX  341 

Careless  Lovers,  The,  211 

Carlell,  Lodovick,  198 

Carteret,  Sir  Philip,  56,  309 

Cartwright,  William,  67,  72,  73,  89,  109,  113,  115,  185,  216 

Caryl,  John,  138 

Castlemayne,  Lady,  42,  54,  55,  87,  97,  102,  110,  145,  158,  179, 
189,  246,  278 

Catiline,  His  Conspiracy,  22,  42,  48,  111-2 

Cervantes,  82-3 

Chances,  The,  82-3 

Change  of  Crowns,  The,  30,  31,  46,  114,  162 

Changeling,  The,  120 

Changes,  The,  or  Love  in  a  Maze,  46,  122-3 

Chapman,  George,  103 

Charles  II,  10,  17,  18,  31,  40,  42,  44,  52,  53,  54,  55,  57,  70,  71, 
75,  81,  87,  97,  99,  102,  108,  110,  111,  112,  119,  122,  126, 
129,  133,  140,  141,  143,  146,  151,  155,  157,  162,  166,  169, 
172,  173,  177,  178,  179,  183,  186,  187,  188,  198,  226,  228, 
241,  247,  257,  269,  293 

Chaucer,  Geoffrey,  264 

Cheats,  The,  226 

Chetwood,  Rufus,  175 

Gibber,  Theophilus,  10,  70,  212,  226,  230 

Cid,  The,  32,  53,  197-8 

City  Match,  The,  118-9 

Claracilla,  167-8 

Clarke,  Timothy,  134,  145,  155,  178,  182 

Cleodora,  or  The  Queen  of  Arragon,  106 

Chin,  Walter,  73,  88,  96,  102,  109,  216-7 

Coello,  Antonio,  32,  138,  192 

Coleman,  Edward,  239,  320 

Coleman,  Mrs.  Edward,  238-9,  257 

Collection  of  Ancient  Documents  respecting  the  .  .  .  Revels,  A, 
see  under  Halliwell-Phillipps 

Collier,  Jeremy,  25 

Comical  Revenge,  The,  or  Love  in  a  Tub,  30,  157-8,  159 

Commenius,  Johann  A.,  197 


342  INDEX 

Committee,  The,  165 

Conquest  of  Granada,  The,  248 

Cooke,  Henry,  239,  265,  320 

Cooke,  John,  103-4 

Cooke,  Sir  Robert,  95 

Corey,  Mrs.   ("Doll  Common"),  41,  42,  95,  97,  109,  111,  113, 

115,  151,  239-40 

Corneille,  Pierre,  32,  49,  148,  197-201 
Corneille,  Thomas,  201 
Cornelianum  Dolium,  121 
Cornwallis,  Mrs.,   150 
Country  Captain,  The,  117,  169-70 
Country  Wife,  The,  218 
Court  Beggar,  The,  257 
Court  Secret,  The,  128 
Coventry,  Sir  William,  45,  162,  270 
Cowley,  Abraham,  19,  29,  32,  55,  139,  263-4 
Coxcomb,  The,  83 
Creed,  John,  87,  97,  134,  177 
Cromwell,  Lady  Mary,  52,  277 
Cromwell,  Oliver,  163 

Cruelty  of  the  Spaniards  in  Peru,  The,  290 
Cunning  Lovers,  The,  263 
Cunningham,  Peter,  215,  266,  283 
Cupid's  Revenge,  or  Love  Despised,  84 
Custom  of  the  Country,  The,  84-5 
Cutter  of  Coleman  Street,  29,  55,  139 

Damoiselles  a  la  Mode,  20,  160-1 

D'Avenant,  Sir  William,  21,  28,  29,  32,  39,  44,  48,  50,  56,  65, 

69,  70,  75,  104,  140-7,  155,  178,  182,  202,  213,  257,  264-5, 

290,  295,  296,  298,  302,  303,  306,  308,  317,  318 
D'Avenant,   Dramatic    Works   of    (Maidment   and   Logan   ed.), 

318-9 
Davenport,  Elizabeth  ("Roxalana"),  42,  65,  69,  117,  141,  143, 

144,  146,  179,  193,  198,  255-6 
Davenport,  Francis,  42,  240 


INDEX  343 

Davies,  Thomas,  215 

Davis,  Mary  ("Moll"),  42,  54,  55,  58,  77,  125,  138,  143,  152, 
158,  159,  177,  179,  240-2 

Dekker,  Thomas,   118 

Denham,  Sir  John,  199 

Dennis,  John,  187 

Depit  Amour eux,  Le,  148 

Devil  is  an  Ass,  The,  112 

Dick  Whittington,  207-8 

Dictionary  of  National  Biography,  248 

Doran,  Dr.  John,  171,  202,  259,  281 

Dorset,  Lady,  75 

Dorset,  Lord,  179 

Downes,  John,  9,  12,  19,  42,  65,  67-70,  73-5,  77,  83-5,  88,  92, 
95-7,  101-2,  104,  106,  109,  111,  113-5,  120,  122,  124-5, 
129-30,  134,  138-43,  146,  151-2,  158-9,  161,  173,  176-7, 
184,  187-8,  193,  211-3,  224,  226,  229,  231,  239-40,  252, 
255,  258,  289,  298-9,  306,  315,  317-8 

Drayton,  Michael,  130 

Drawwater,  Dorothy,  153 

Dryden,  John,  9,  20,  25,  26,  32,  69,  75,  97,  128,  147-57,  200, 
246,  248,  259,  265-6,  304 

Duchess  of  Half,,  The,  129 

Duke  of  Lerma,  The  (The  Great  Favorite},  31,  166,  246,  266 

Eclectic  Review,  The,  7 

Edinburgh  Review,  The,  7,  8 

Elder  Brother,  The,  85 

Elizabeth,  Queen,  50,  108 

Elizabeth  of  Bohemia,  54,  143,  147,  278 

Elizabethan  Club,   198 

English  Monsieur,  The,  41,  164 

English  Princess,  The,  or  Richard  the  Third,  138 

Epicoene,  or  The  Silent  Woman,  28,  38,  41,  47,  112-4 

Etherege,  Sir  George,  22,  30,  84,  106,  157-9,  207,  280 

L'Etourdi,  152 

Evelyn,  John,  21,  24,  25,  159 


344  INDEX 

Evelyn,  John,  Diary  of,  19,  66,  69,  96,  111,  115,  119,  140,  143, 
148,  150,  155,  157,  159,  165,  179,  192-3,  200,  205,  226-7, 
256,  263-4,  268,  324 

Evening's  Love,  An,  or  The  Mock  Astrologer,  20,  25,  147-8 

Fdcheux,  Les,  188 

Faithful  Shepherd,  The,  202 

Faithful  Shepherdess,  The,  48,  85-6 

Falkland,  Lord,  160 

Familiar  Studies  of  Men  and  Books,  12 

Father's  Own  Son  (Monsieur  Thomas),  86-7 

Faustus,  Doctor,  The  Tragical  History  of,  116 

Ferrabosco,  Alfonso,  322 

Ferrers,  Captain,  68,  91,  182 

Filmore,  Sir  Edward,  201 

First  Day's  Entertainment  at  Rutland  House,  The,  140 

Flecknoe,  Richard,  20,  160,  266,  315-6 

Fletcher,  John,  10,  28,  48,  76,  81-101,  119,  200 

Flora's  Vagaries,  43,  184-5 

Ford,  John,  104-5 

French  Dancing  Master,  The,  205 

Fountain,  John,  187 

Fox,  Lady,  194,  311 

General,  The,  175-6 

Genest,  John,  11,  12,  19,  70,  74,  83,  89,  95,  96,  99,  103,  109, 
111,  114,  123,  142,  147,  154,  155,  160,  161,  162.  163,  181-2, 
185,  191,  211,  216,  218,  238,  252,  253,  254,  324 

Gentleman's  Magazine,  The,  9,  266 

German  Princess,  The,  181-2 

Ghosts,  The,  161 

Glapthorne,  Henry,  105-6 

Gloucester,  Duke  of,  112 

Goblins,  The,  88,  128 

Godolphin,  Sidney,  201 

Gosnell,  Mrs.,  42,  66,  77,  134,  142,  143,  190,  191,  242-3 

Gosse,  Edmund,  124 


INDEX      .  345 

Gramont,  The  Count  de,  Memoirs  of,  144,  256 

Grand  Cyrus,  The,  231 

Grateful  Servant,  The,  124 

Green,  Alexander,  161 

Greene,  Thomas,  104 

Guardian,  The,  139 

Guarini,  Battista,  202 

Guzman,  29,  176-7,  181 

Gwyn,  "Nell,"  8,  9,  30,  31,  42,  43,  47,  88,  95,  138,   148,  149, 

150,  151,  156,  163,  164,  166,  167,  173,  184,  187,  224,  243-8, 

251 

Habington,  William,  106 

Haines,  Joseph,  83,  120,  217-8,  305 

Hale,  John,  221,  223 

Hall,  "Betty,"  88 

Halliwell-Phillipps,  J.  O.,  290,  308,  317 

Hamlet,  21,  23,  24,  28,  46,  48,  65-6 

Harris,  Henry,  44,  45,  46,  65,  68,  70,  74,  76,  77,  111,  129,  137, 
138,  139,  141,  142,  143,  146,  152,  158,  159,  177,  179,  180, 
184,  188,  189,  191,  192,  193,  218-23,  295,  296 

Hart,  Charles,  31,  67,  73,  83,  88,  89,  92,  95,  96,  103,  111,  115, 
148,  151,  163,  164,  173,  200,  224,  232,  246 

Harvey,  Lady,  42 

Hazlitt,  W.  C.,  87,  103,  104,  108,  121,  161,  171-2,  176,  205 

Hearne,  Thomas,  322 

Heiress,  The,  45,  170-1 

Henry  IV,  Part  I,  23,  66-67 

Henry  V  (Orrery's),  29,  173,  175,  176-8 

Henry  VI,  218 

Henry  VIII,  20,  23,  28,  48,  67-9,  155,  163 

Heraclius,  32,  49,  198-9 

Herbert,  Sir  Henry,  19,  41,  81,  290 

Heritiere  Ridicule,  141 

Hey  wood,  Thomas,  107-8 

Historia  Histrionica,  95,  169,  277 

History  of  the  English  Stage,  The,  237 


346  INDEX 

Histriomastrix,  257 

Holden,  T.,  161 

Holof ernes,  208 

Horace,  82,  199-200 

Howard,  Edward,  80,  45,  114,  162-3,  267 

Howard,  James,  30,  31,  74,  163-4 

Howard,  Sir  Robert,  25,  30,  31,  33,  69,  155-7,  165-7,  179,  189, 

206,  268,  270 
Hudibras,  223 
Hughs,  Mrs.,  73 

Humourous  Lieutenant,  The,  87-8 
Humourous  Lovers,  The,  54,  171-2 
Hyde  Park,  49,  124 

Ibrahim,  ou  I'illustre  Bassa,  148 

//  You  Know  not  Me  You  Know  Nobody,  or  The  Troubles  of 

Queen  Elizabeth,  50,  108 
Indian  Emperor,  The,  29,  148,  149-50,  164 
Indian  Queen,  The,  25,  29,  69,  155-7,  165 
Island  Princess,  The,  or  The  Generous  Portugal,  48,  89 

Jeffrey,  Lord,  6,  7,  8 

Jerdan,  William,  10 

Jodelet,  ou  le  Maitre  Valet,  141 

Jonah  and  the  Whale,  207 

Jones,  Inigo,  85,  107 

Jonson,  Ben,  9,  22,  28,  38,  41,  42,  95,  109-15,  119,  128,  200 

Jovial  Crew,  The,  25,  102 

Katherine   (of  Braganza),  Queen,   53,  97,   110,   122,   133,   157, 

162,  186,  198,  242,  279 
Kilbourne,  F.  W.,  68 
Killigrew,  Henry,  53,  134 
Killigrew,  Thomas,  9,  19,  25,  30,  33,  39,  41,  43,  44,  45,  48,  51, 

59-60,  65,  81,  92,  100,  105,  110,  121,  126,  167-8,  175,  184," 

205,  257,  269-70,  303,  306,  309 


INDEX  347 

King  and  no  King,  A,  89-90 

Knepp,  Mrs.,  42,  43,  83,  84,  88,  93,  97,  99,  108,  112,  113,  114, 

118,  128,  148,  149,  151,  165,  166,  167,  171,  184,  185,  248- 

52 

Knight,  Joseph,  289 
Knight  of  the  Burning  Pestle,  The,  90 
Kyd,  Thomas,  115,  305 
Kynaston,  Edward,  41,  45,  46,  85,  89,  91,  95,  113,  114,  115,  170, 

171,  173,  212,  225-6 

Labyrinth,  The,  or  The  Fatal  Embarrassment,  201 

Lacy,  John,  30,  31,  45,  46,  49,  74,  85,  88,  102,  109,  113,  115, 

122,  123,  162,  165,  169,  205,  226-30 
Ladies  a  la  Mode,  The,  20,  160-1 
Lady's  Trial,  The,  104 
Langbaine,  Gerard,  12,  19,  83,  84,  94,  100,  103,  119,  122,  162, 

101,  169,  172,  226 
Law  against  Lovers,  The,  69,  140 
Lee,  Nathaniel,  229 
Lee,  Sir  Sidney,  6,  13,  24 
Legg,  William,  303 
Lilliston,  141 
Lock,  Matthew,  318,  320 
Lockhart,  John,  8 

London  Literary  Gazette,  The,  9-11 
London  Past  and  Present,  40,  289,  290,  293 
Long,  Mrs.,  124 

Los  Empenos  de  Seis  Horas,  192 
Lost  Lady,  The,  81 
Love  a  la  Mode,  190 
Love  and  Honour,  140-1 

Love  Tricks,  or  The  School  of  Compliment,  125 
Love's  Cruelty,  125 
Love's  Kingdom,  315 
Love's  Mistress,  93,  107,  157 
Love's  Quarrel,  133 
Lounsbury,  Thomas  R.,  23 


348  INDEX 

Lowe,  Robert  W.,  6,  19,  74,  88,  91,  93,  126,  298,  307,  323 
Loyal  Subject,  The,  47,  91 

Macbeth,  22,  29,  54,  70-1,  140 

MacFlecknoe,  304 

Mad  Lover,  The,  91-2 

Magnin,  Charles,  205 

Maid's  Tragedy,  The,  28,  52,  92-3 

Maid  in  the  Mill,  The,  94> 

Malone,  Edmond,  81,  82,  87,  92,  100,  102,  103,  105,  113,  121, 

125,  175,  184,  205,  258 
Man's  the  Master,  The,  141-2 

Manual  .   .    .  of  Old  English  Plays,  see  under  Hazlitt 
Marlowe,  Christopher,  116 
Marriage  Night,  The,  160 
Marshall,  Anne,  42,  156,  157,  252-3 

Marshall,  Rebecca,  42,  92-3,  118,  122,  124,  151,  179,  253-4,  259 
Marshall,  Stephen,  252-4 
Martin  Mar-all,  Sir,  26,  29,  152-4 

Massinger,  Philip,  28,  42,  76,  81-2,  84,  85,  98,  99,  116-8 
Mayne,  Jasper,  118-9 
Mayor  of  Quinborough,  The,  119 

Measure  for  Measure,  see  under  The  Law  against  Lovers 
Menteur,  Le,  200 
Merry  Andrew,  133,  207 
Merry  Devil  of  Edmonton,  The,  130 
Merry  Wives  of  Windsor,  The,  71-2 
Middleton,  Sir  Hugh,  259 
Middleton,  Thomas,  119-20 
Midsummer  Night's  Dream,  A,  23,  72 
Mistaken  Beauty,  The,  or  The  Liar,  32,  200 
Modern  History  of  Hero  and  Leander,  The,  32,  110,  207 
Moders,  Mary,  182 
Mohun,  Michael,  73,  81,  88,  89,  92,  95,  96,  100,  109,  111,  113, 

115,  125,  126,  148,  151,  162,  173,  185,  229-30 
Moliere,  148,  152,  161,  188 
Monmouth,  Duchess  of,  150 


INDEX  349 

Monmouth,  Duke  of,  97,  149,  274 

Monthly  Repository  of  Theology  and  General  Literature,  The,  7 

Moreland,  Lady,  104 

Moreto,  187 

Mourning  Bride,  The,  323 

Much  Ado  about  Nothing,  see  under  The  Law  Against  Lovers 

Mulberry  Garden,  The,  31,  53,  55,  185-6 

Mustapha,  29,  56,  173,  179-80 

Naufragium  Joculare,  139 

Nettleton,  George  Henry,  148,  165 

New  Monthly  Magazine  and  Literary  Journal,  The,  9 

Newcastle,  Duchess  of,  54,  171-2 

Newcastle,  Duke  of,  30,  54,  152,  169-72,  205 

Night  Walker,  The,  or  The  Little  Thief,  90-1 

No  puede  ser,  187 

Nokes,  Charles,  152,  158,  188 

Northern  Castle,  The,  20,  102-3 

Northern  Lass,  The,  20,  102-3 

Norton,  Mrs.,  42,  69,  144,  255 

O'Bryan,  Captain,  150 

Ogilby,  John,  226 

Old  Bachelor,  The,  218 

Old  Royal  Palace  of  Whitehall,  The,  39,  292,  293 

Old  Troop,  The,  or  Monsieur  Raggou,  169 

"Orange  Moll,"  44,  57-8,  284-5 

Oroonoko,  156 

Orphan,  The,  231 

Orrery,  Earl  of,  22,  29,  46,  172-81 

Othello,  23,  28,  73,  194 

Otway,  Thomas,  231 

Oxford,  Earl  of,  141,  144,  177,  179,  256 

Palmer,  John,  25 

Palmer,  Mrs.  Roger,  see  under  Castlemayne 

Parson's  Wedding,  The,  25,  44,  168-9 


350  INDEX 

Patient  Grizill,  32,  208 

Perm,  Sir  William,  75,  90,  126,  150,  154,  161 

Perm,  William,  98 

Peor  Estd  que  Estaba,  138 

Pepys,  Elizabeth  (Mrs.  Samuel),  52  and  passim 

Pepys,  Samuel,  5  and  passim 

Pepys,  Samuel,  Diary  of  (Wheatley  ed.),  5  and  passim 

Pepys,  Samuel,  Memoirs  of  (Braybrooke  ed.),  5,  6,  7,  8 

Pepys,  Samuel,  and  the  World  He  Lived  In,  13 

Pepysiana,  13 

Peters,  Hugh,  163 

Philaster,  28,  94-5 

Philips,  Katharine,  199-200 

Plaindealer,  The,  222 

Playhouse  to  be  Let,  A,  202,  302 

Polichinello,  32,  188,  205-7 

Politician  Cheated,  The,  161 

Pompey  the  Great,  32,  201 

Pope,  Alexander,  212 

Porter,  Thomas,  26,  30,  181-4 

Price,  Joseph,  141 

Princess,  The,  or  Love  at  First  Sight,  168 

Prynne,  William,  257 

Prodigal  Son,  The,  207 

Purcell,  Henry,  318-9 

Quarterly  Review,  The,  8 

Rehearsal,  The,  29 

Rewards  of  Virtue,  The,  187 

Rhodes,  John,  225,  290 

Rhodes,  Richard,  30,  184-5 

Riley,  Thomas,  121 

Rival  Ladies,  The,  154 

Rivals,  The,  142-3,  242 

Roman  Virgin,  The,  or  The  Unjust  Judge,  137 

Romeo  and  Juliet,  73-4 


INDEX  351 

Royal  Shepherdess,  The,  54,  86,  187-8 

Roscius  Anglicanus,  see  under  Dowries 

Rowley,  William,  94,  95,  120,  121 

"Roxalana,"  see  under  Elizabeth  Davenport 

Rule  a  Wife  and  Have  a  Wife,  96,  226 

Rump,  The,  or  The  Mirrour  of  the  Late  Times,  191 

Rupert,  Prince,  179 

Rutter,  Mrs.,  73,  85,  97 

St.  Serfe,  Sir  Thomas,  187 

Sandford,  Samuel,  70,  142,  158,  179,  184,  191,  230 

Sandwich,  Lord,  110,  133 

Sawney  the  Scot,  or  The  Taming  of  the  Shrew,  74,  169 

Scarron,  Paul,  141 

Schelling,  Felix  E.,  170 

Schola  Ludus,  197 

Scornful  Lady,  The,  41,  96-8 

Scott,  Sir  Walter,  6,  8,  9 

Scuderi,  de,  Mme.,  148 

Secret  Love,  or  The  Maiden  Queen,  30,  138,  150-2,  259 

Sedley,  Sir  Charles,  9,  30,  31,  33,  45,  52,  53,  54,  89,  93,  159, 

170,  171,  175,  176,  185-6,  201,  245,  271-2 
Senora  Cornelia,  La,  83 

Serenade,  The,  or  The  Disappointment,  191-2 
Shadwell,  Thomas,  29,  30,  33,  54,  114,  176,  187-90,  223,  272-3, 

284,  309 

Shadwell,  Mrs.,  159,  188 
Shakespeare,  William,  8,  9,  13,  20,  23,  24,  28,  37,  65-78,  178, 

213 
Shakspeare,  William,  The  Plays  and  Poems  of  (Malone  ed.),  see 

under  Malone 

Sheppard,  Edgar,  39,  40,  292-3 
She  Would  if  She  Could,  22,  30,  58,  84,  106,  207 
Shirley,  James,  28,  49,  90,  121-6,  176 
Shotterel,  49,  67,  92,  113 
Siege  of  Rhodes,  The,  42,  47,  50,  143-5 
Singleton,  John,  321 


352  INDEX 

Slighted  Maid,  The,  47,  190-1 

Smith,  William,  70,  129,  138,  152,  159,  179,  184,  188,  191,  231 

Some  Account  of  the  English  Stage,  see  under  Genest 

Sorrows  of  Griselda,  The,  207 

Southland,  Thomas,  190 

Spanish  Curate,  The,  98 

Spanish  Gypsy,  The,  120 

Spanish  Tragedy,  The,  or  Hieronimo  is  Mad  Again,  115,  202 

Speed,  John,  174 

Spenser,  Edmund,  264 

Stapylton,  Sir  Robert,  30,  190-1 

Steele,  Sir  Richard,  212 

Stevenson,  Robert  Louis,  6,  12,  21,  23 

Storm,  The  (The  Sea  Voyage),  76,  99 

Story  of  Nell  Gwyn,  The,  see  under  Cunningham 

Stratford,  M.,  201 

Suckling,  Sir  John,  88,  126-8 

Sullen  Lovers,  The,  or  The  Impertinents,  33,  47,  54,  188-90,  206 

Surprisal,  The,  32,  43,  166-7,  206 

Taming  of  the  Shrew,  The,  see  under  Sawney  the  Scot 

Tarugo's  Wiles,  or  The  Coffee  House,  187 

Tatham,  John,  191 

Taylor,  Silas,  191-2 

Taylor,  213 

Tempest,  The,  29,  49,  75-7,  99,  140,  155 

'Tis  Pity  She's  a  Whore,  105 

Thorndike,  Ashley,  H.,  37,  38 

Thry  sander,  159 

Tomkis,  Thomas,  128-9 

Traitor,  The,  28,  126 

True  Widow,  A,  272,  284,  309 

Tryphon,  180-1 

Tu  Quoque,  or  The  City  Gallant,  103-4 

Tuke,  Sir  Samuel,  20,  23,  25,  138,  192-4 

Twelfth  Night,  77-8 


INDEX  353 

Two  Noble  Kinsmen,  The,  142 
Tyrannic  Love,  246 

Unfortunate  Lovers,  The,  145-6 
Usurper,  The,  162-3 

Variety,  The,  205,  226 
Villain,  The,  26,  182-4 
Virgin  Martyr,  The,  50,  51,  118 
Volpone,  28,  115 

Ward,  Sir  A.  W.,  12,  138 

Waters,  Lucy,  279 

Weaver,  Mrs.  149,  257 

Webb,  John,  315 

Webster,  John,  129-30,  137 

Wheatley,  Henry  B.,  6,  12,  13,  40 

White  Devil,  The,  or  Vittoria  Corombona,  129-30 

Whittington,  DicJc,  207-8 

Widow,  The,  41,  99,  119 

Wild  Gallant,  The,  97,  155 

Wild  Goose  Chase,  The,  100 

Wintersell,  William,  67,  88,  92,  113,  123,  173,  231-2 

Wit  in  a  Constable,  106 

Wit  without  Money,  100 

The  Wits,  29,  47,  146-7 

Witty  Combat,  A,  181-2 

Woman's  Prize,  The,  or  The  Tamer  Tamed,  101 

Women  Pleased,  101 

Wright,  James,  95,  169,  277 

Wycherley,  William,  222 

York,  Duchess  of,  53,  87,  102,  146,  157,  159,  162,  168 

York,  Duke  of,  53,  54,  87,   102,  108,  110,  112,   141,  143,   146, 

157,  163,  168,  172,  177,  187,  188,  189,  220 
Young,  22,  71,  129,  152,  184,  191,  193,  232 
Young  Gallant's  Academy,  The,  283 


RETURN     CIRCULATION  DEPARTMENT 
TO—-*      202  Main  Library 

LOAN  PERIOD  1 
HOME  USE 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

ALL  BOOKS  MAY  BE  RECALLED  AFTER  7  DAYS 

1  -month  loans  may  be  renewed  by  calling  642-3405 

6-month  loans  may  be  recharged  by  bringing  books  to  Circulation 

Desk 

Renewals  and  recharges  may  be  made  4  days  prior  to  due  date 

DUE  AS  STAMPED  BELOW 


REG.  CIR.     FEB  2  0 

979 

BEG.  CI&    MAY  3  0   "^ 

LAJdOO  1QQ7 

JHn  ««  i™' 

MJTO.I* 

^u. 

MfiM  ?A  ' 

P 

I'** 

UNIVERSITY  OF  CALIFORNIA,  BERKELEY 
FORM  NO.  DD6,  40m,  3/78  BERKELEY,  CA  94720 


53137 

GENERAL  LIBRARY  -  U.C.  BERKELEY 


THE  UNIVERSITY  OF  CALIFORNIA  LIBRARY 


mill 


